ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the June 17, 2003 meeting held at the Basement Public Meeting Room, S4295 South Buffalo Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Remy Orffeo, Chairman
Deborah Chimes
Donald Holmwood
Robert Lennartz
Henry Jarocha
Jo Ann Litwin, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Assistant Building Inspector
J. Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Rosemary Seivert, Zoning Board Secretary
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. stating if anyone appearing before the Board was related through family, financial or business relationship with any member of the Board, it is incumbent upon him to make it known under State Law and the Town Code of Ethics.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 2003 REGULAR MEETING:
A motion was made by Mr. Lennartz, seconded by Mr. Jarocha to accept the minutes of the May 20, 2003, Zoning Board meeting and the reading of these minutes is hereby dispensed with as each member of the Board has previously received copies thereof.
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE RESOLUTION WAS DULY ADOPTED.
The Chairman stated that all persons making an appeal before this Board would be
heard in accordance with the Town Laws of the State of New York, Article 16, Sections 267, 279 and 280a, Subdivision 3, and the Town of Orchard Park Zoning Ordinance. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may present to a court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition must be presented to the court within 30 days after filing of the decision in the office of the Town Clerk.
The Chairman stated that site inspections of all cases presented tonight were made by:
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 2
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LITWIN AYE
The Chairman announced the following changes to the published legal notice; under “Old Business”, Item #1 should read “to all lot lines 50 feet”, not 30 feet and under “New Business”, Item #3 should read “11 feet x 9 feet”, not inches. The Chairman noted that the corrections have no bearing on the variances being requested.
The Chairman stated that a “conditional approval” had been granted for Zoning Board Case #3-03, Joseph DeMarco & Timothy Arlington. The Chairman was to approve the final granting of the variance request, pending his review of the traffic safety report that had been requested by the Board from the Public Safety Committee. The Chairman noted that a letter from the Public Safety Committee indicates that they are satisfied with the revised project. However, the Chairman requests that a stipulation be added to the variance. Mr. Jarocha recused himself from this case
Chairman Orffeo made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Chimes, for a stipulation to be added to the variance granted, as follows:
1. There is to be no outside storage of any kind.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH A STIPULATION.
OLD BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #15-03, Dennis Boyle, Vacant Land East side of Taylor Rd., (Part of Farm Lot 24, Township 9, Range 7; SBL #’s 161.00-3-26 & 161.19-2-1), Zoned R-3. Requests three area variances to construct a town house project. First, to reduce the setback to all lot lines to 50 ft. Minimum setback to property lines for multiple dwellings under Special Exception Use is 75 ft., Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations. Second, to reduce the setback to the right-of-way of the private roads and the distance between buildings. Minimum setback to the right-of-way of a private road is 50 ft. Minimum distance between buildings is 60 ft., Section 144-46C(4)(a). Third, to reduce the setback to driveways and parking lots. Minimum setback to a
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 3
driveway or parking lot is 25 ft. from the front of a building, Section 144-46C(4)(b). This case was tabled at the May 20th, 2003 meeting.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Phil Silvestri, Silvestri Architects
Mr. Carmen Provenzano, Silvestri Architects
Mr. Dennis Boyle, Woodbridge Construction
The Chairman noted that this case had been tabled pending the recent of additional information from the petitioner. In the time between that meeting and now, a correspondence was received from Mr. Michael Alspaugh, of the Erie County Department of Planning. No recommendation is made, however there were comments regarding SEQR. The Chairman read these comments aloud, noting that he feels it must be determined if an archeological study will need to be required as the comments suggest. The comments also suggest having a wetlands and a traffic study performed. The Chairman noted that both of these studies had been performed and that he would comment on these studies during the meeting.
The Chairman noted that the petitioner had submitted a requested revised plan. He further stated that the Board Members had found the revised plan to be difficult and time consuming to review. The members would have preferred a summary of the changes advised in a cover letter to accompany the revised plan. A discussion with the petitioner and the members on how to read and compare the first submission to the revised one, concluded with Mr. Silvestri explaining, while indicating on the revised plan the reduced setback figures and locations, that two (2) buildings had been eliminated. He further indicated on the plan where the 75’ setback exists.
The Chairman noted that he has concerns with the submitted traffic study as it is 3-1/2 years old. This study does not take into account the traffic from the nearby future subdivision, known as “Pleasant Acres West”. The Chairman stated that in his opinion, this omission indicates that a new traffic safety study will need to be performed. Chairman Orffeo also noted that the traffic study had based its research on having one (1) entrance, rather than the two that are now being proposed. He further told the petitioner to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHIPPO) to determine if there is a need for the archeological study, as commented on in the Erie County Planning Department’s response. If there is no need for this study, a letter confirming this fact is requested. The case can not go forward until these two issues have been addressed.
Mr. Lennartz established that the number of building units was reduced from 96 to 88.
Mr. Jarocha asked Mr. Silvestri to clarify and show how the dimensions changed on the site plan. Mr. Silvestri explained this for the members.
Chairman Orffeo reconfirmed with the petitioner that the proposed project had been reduced from 96 units to 88 and asked Mr. Boyle if he was aware that he
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 4
needed a Special Exception Use granted before moving forward with his project. Mr. Boyle stated that he did understand this. Chairman Orffeo briefly discussed the landscape plan, confirming with Mr. Boyle that a green space area will be remaining within the site. The Chairman reconfirmed for the petitioner the following:
1. A letter must be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the archeology survey.
2. The wetlands study needs to be reviewed by the petitioner, to ensure that this study addresses the Erie County Planning Department’s comments.
3. The 3-1/2 year old Traffic Study presented is flawed and outdated. A new study is needed to take into account the additional traffic from the future “Pleasant Acres West” subdivision. Also, the study shall reflect two entrances, rather than having only one considered.
4. The Chairman requests that the petitioners leave the color site plan presented for the convenience of the members to review their density concerns.
Mr. Boyle asked the Board if there were any other issues remaining, noting that he has based his presentation on the information supplied by the Planning Office and the criteria that the Zoning Board of Appeals uses to make their decisions. He further stated that, typically, the issues that are being asked to be addressed are brought out at the Planning Board review. Mr. Boyle is confused with regards to this. The Chairman told Mr. Boyle, that at this point, these are the two additional pieces he believes they need, along with a map that the Board can read and understand. At the next meeting, the Board will address the density issue.
Mr. Boyle noted that he has submitted the requested criteria that the Board states they need to base their decision on; this being the dimensions between the buildings and the dimensions from the property. Chairman Orffeo told Mr. Boyle that the traffic safety study had also been requested. Although the traffic safety study had been received, Chairman Orffeo told Mr. Boyle that he found it to be outdated. Mr. Boyle stated that this is not the normal criteria he understood the Board based their decisions on. Chairman Orffeo told Mr. Boyle that this Board looks at public safety and the effects of granting a variance on the public safety, change and character of the neighborhood and how substantial the request is. The outdated traffic study submitted did not reflect the two issues that the Board has concerns with. The Chairman further explained to Mr. Boyle that it is not unusual for the Board to request a Public Safety study and that it is done on a regular basis. Most recently, the Board made this request of several petitioners, i.e.… with the Lowe’s project, the DeMarco project, which is located close by on Taylor and the Hogg Car wash project at the corner of California and Route 20.
The secretary is instructed to provide a copy of the Erie County Department of Planning’s response to the petitioners.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 5
Mr. Holmwood made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Chimes to TABLE this case until the July 15th meeting.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THIS CASE IS TABLED UNTIL THE JULY 15th MEETING.
NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #16-03, Albert A. DeMarco, 144 Hillside Avenue (Sub Lot#’s 233 & 234, Map Cover 860; SBL#151.12-6-17.2), Zoned R-3. Requests (2) variances. The first is a use variance to construct a detached garage on a vacant lot. Permitted use for an R-3 lot of record is a single-family dwelling, Section 144-20A. The second is an area variance to locate proposed garage 5’ from the rear lot line. Minimum rear setback for an accessory structure for an R-3 lot of record is 10’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. & Mrs. Frank DeMarco, property owners
Mr. Demarco explained his proposed plan to build a garage on a lot that he presently owns, with the intention of, also, building a home there in the future. The member’s questions established that Mr. DeMarco would work with his neighbor to correct any drainage problems. The proposed garage will be used to store a van, a camper and a lawn mower. The member’s questions also determined that it will not be practical to locate the proposed garage elsewhere on the lot. It was further noted that no neighbors had expressed any objections to the granting of the variance.
Mr. Holland told the petitioner and the members that the garage must remain smaller than the future planned residence to be in compliance.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of this variance.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 6
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Chairman Orffeo made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Chimes, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Mr. Jarocha made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT both variances for the following reasons:
1. This difficulty was not self-created as the size of the lot makes it difficult to meet the present requirements of the Town.
2. The request is not substantial.
3. It does not appear that there will be an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
4. There is no other way for this difficulty to be alleviated at this time.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCES ARE HEREBY GRANTED.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 7
2. ZBA File #17-03, Carl A. Schleelein, 3419 N. Benzing Road, (Part of Farm Lot 27,
Township 10, Range 7; SBL# 152.18-1-4), Zoned I-1. Requests an area variance to construct an addition 16’ from the rear lot line. Minimum rear yard setback in an I-1 Zone is 20’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Carl A. Schleelein, owner
Mr. Schleelein presented and explained his proposed plans for an addition to his warehouse building. The Chairman confirmed with Mr. Schleelein that the addition is a prefabricated building. It was further established that the building will be 50 x 50 square feet and will exceed the ordinance by approximately 4 square feet.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mr. Lennartz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jarocha, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 8
Mrs. Chimes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jarocha, to GRANT the variance for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood.
2. The request is not substantial.
3. There will be no adverse effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
4. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE IS HEREBY GRANTED.
2. ZBA File #18-03, Raymond N. Anger, 2881 Southwestern Blvd. (Part of Farm Lot 409, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#153.06-2-3), Zoned B-2. Requests a variance to erect an 11’ x 9’ monument sign with 32-square feet of text area. Maximum height of a monument sign is 5’. Maximum area of a monument sign is 30 square feet. Maximum text area of a monument sign is 20 square feet, Section 144-33, Regulation of Signs.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Raymond Anger, property owner
Mr. Anger explained to the members that the existing sign is damaged and he presented photos that represented a proposed replacement sign. Mr. Anger stated that it is his desire to provide better visibility for his five tenants with the proposed sign. A discussion regarding reducing the size of the pillars concluded with Mr. Anger agreeing that he could reduce the pillars to 24”. It was also established that the proposed sign is 12-sq. ft. more that what is allowed and that the proposed sign will be illuminated. It was established that the new sign would replace the old sign.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 9
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mr. Lennartz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Mrs. Chimes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, to GRANT the variance for the following reasons:
1. There will be no detriment to the neighborhood
2. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The pillars on the sides of the sign are to be reduced and the overall reduction is to be 24”.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 10
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH A STIPULATION.
4. ZBA File #19-03, Renee Mirza, 1 Jonden Trail, (Part of Farm Lot 451, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#152.10-2-34), Zoned R-3. Requests an area variance to construct a 6’ high fence in a front yard. Maximum height of a fence in a front yard is 3’, Section 144-22A(1).
APPEARANCE: Renee Mirza, property owner
Charles Sherry, petitioner’s father
Mrs. Mirza explained the proposed plan to install a fence to create privacy for herself and her neighbor. Mrs. Mirza submitted a letter from her neighbor, residing at 37 Melberry Trail, stating she has no objection to the granting of the variance. The Chairman confirmed with Mr. Holland that the neighbor could install a six-foot fence on her back property line and be in conformance. Mrs. Mirza told the members that she would prefer a natural buffer, however, the area is too open and windy for plantings to thrive.
Mr. Lennartz established that there will be no more homes built in this area and that the petitioner desires the proposed fence for both privacy and a windbreak.
Chairman Orffeo noted that he generally does not support variances for fences. However, in this case, he does not feel that it is fair to not allow what the neighbor could install. The members concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to install a 6-foot fence at the same location that the neighbor could have it exist.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 11
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Chairman Orffeo made a motion, second by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the variance for the following reasons:
1. There will be no change to the character of the neighborhood, because the neighbor could do the exact same thing, inches away from this.
2. No correspondence has been received from the neighbors indicating that there is a problem with having this fence.
3. The privacy issue cannot be addressed in any other way.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The six-foot high section shall not go any further than where the neighbor could install the six-foot high fence. After this section, the fence shall be the required three feet high.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE IS HEREBY GRANTED.
5. ZBA File #20-03, Thomas S. Nola, 5741 Lake Avenue, (Sub Lot 7, Map Cover 2338, SBL#152.14-1-18), Zoned R-3. Requests an area variance to construct a shed 5’ from a side lot line. Minimum side yard setback in an R-3 lot of record is 10’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Thomas Nola, property owner
Mr. Nola explained his proposed plans to construct a shed on an existing concrete pad. He told the members that a severe drainage problem exists on his property, limiting the shed’s location. Mr. Nola submitted letters of support from Mr. Dennis Kulczyk of 5729 Lake Avenue and Mr. Brian Krzeminski of 5750 Lake Avenue. These letters will be entered into the file. The Chairman verified that the concrete pad existed prior to the petitioner purchasing the property and that a shed on his neighbor’s property was not in compliance. According to the submitted survey this shed is located 3-1/2’ from the property line.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 12
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mr. Lennartz made a motion, second by Mr. Jarocha, to GRANT the variance for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.
2. The benefit cannot be achieved in another manner.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect to the neighborhood. The concrete pad is already in place.
5. The difficulty was not self-created.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE IS HEREBY GRANTED.
ZBA Mtg. #6 Reg. Mtg. #6 June 17, 2003 Page 13
6. ZBA File #21-03, Lori & John Ward, 3148 Baker Road, (Part of Farm Lot 464, Township 10, Range 7, SBL#153.14-8-28.1), Zoned R-3. Requests an area variance to construct a 6’ high fence in a front yard. Maximum height of a fence in a front yard is 3’, Section 144-22A(1).
APPEARANCE: Mrs. Lori Ward, property owner
Mrs. Ward explained to the members that her needs have changed since the granting of the variance in 2002. She told the members, that since that time, she has had a child and has found that the planned privacy hedgerow is not able to survive due to weather conditions. Mrs. Ward stated that she is now seeking a variance to install a 6’, natural hard wood fence to provide the security and privacy she desires.
Mr. Holmwood verified with Mrs. Ward where the 6’ high fence would be located on her property.
Mr. Lennartz verified that the Board is being asked to replace the hedgerow variance previously granted, with a variance for a fence. Its location would be the same as the hedgerow. The request is to have the proposed 6’ high fence approximately 12 feet from the edge of the house.
Mr. Jarocha asked the petitioner why the fence needed to be 6’ high in the front of the home and Mrs. Ward explained her need for privacy.
Mrs. Ward submitted a letter in support of her variance request from her neighbor, Ms. Tammy Far-Cowan, of 3130 Baker Road. This letter will be entered into the file.
The Chairman noted that when purchasing this corner lot property the petitioner should have performed due diligence and known that there were restrictions. Chairman Orffeo noted that if the petitioner were to install the proposed 6’ high fence up to the corner edge of the house, no variance would be needed and her privacy concerns would be addressed. However Mrs. Ward explained that she wanted to maximize the depth of the lot. A review of the photos presented, concluded with Mrs. Ward agreeing to reduce the distance in placing the 6’ high fence from the house, to 8 feet rather than 12’. The Chairman noted that the proposed plans did not indicate a gate, however Mrs. Ward explained that there would be a gate.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of this variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE