ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the April 19, 2005 meeting held in the Basement Public Meeting Room, S4295 South Buffalo Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Remy Orffeo, Chairman
Donald Holmwood
Robert Lennartz
Joseph Liberti
Jo Ann Litwin
Mark Dietriek, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Building Inspector
J. Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Rosemary Seivert, Zoning Board Secretary
The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance and the Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m., stating that 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 MARCH 15, 2005 REGULAR MEETING:
A motion was made by Mr. Lennartz, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to accept the minutes of the March 15, 2005 meeting and the reading of these minutes are hereby dispensed with as each member of the Board has previously received copies thereof.
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN 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.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 2
The Chairman stated that site inspections of all cases presented tonight were made by:
ORFFEO AYE
DIETRIEK AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #17-05, Giorgio Condemi, 6965 Michael Road, Zoned R-3 (Part of Farm Lot 463, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#153.10-1-53). Requests an area variance to install a 4’ high fence with 6’ high gates in a front yard. Maximum height of a fence in a front yard is 3’, Section 144-22A(1).
APPEARANCE: Mr. Condemi, petitioner
Mr. Condemi presented photos for the members to review, explaining that he desires to construct a 4-foot high fence to aid with safety and privacy concerns. He told the Board that the proposed fence would be made of metal posts and not have brick or pillars, as shown in the submitted photos. He would like the fence to be 4 ft. high with 6’ high gates for aesthetic reasons, but noted that he is willing to abide with the Town’s 3-foot ordinance.
The Chairman read a correspondence that had been received from Mr. Paul J. Winkley of 6955 Michael Road, stating that he was against the request. This correspondence will be entered into the permanent record.
The members’ questions established that Mr. Condemi is not averse to erecting the allowed 3-ft. high fence. However, Mr. Condemi believes the proposed fence would look better if it were higher than 3 feet. Mr. Lennartz told Mr. Condemi that he feels the proposed 4-ft. fence will not provide the privacy and security that he is seeking. He also noted that he did not believe that there was a property in the area with a fence similar to the one being proposed. Mr. Condemi told the Board that there is a similar fence located on Michael Road, east of Baker Road. The members concurred with Mr. Lennartz’ feeling that the extra one-foot in the height of the fence would not be a solution to Mr. Condemi’s privacy and safety concerns. Ms. Litwin suggested that Mr. Condemi use shrubbery to gain the privacy that he is looking for. He told the Board that he plans to install trees behind the fence to aid in buffering sound.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 3
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to
speak against granting the variance.
IN OPPOSITION:
Mrs. Elaine Murphy
6975 Michael Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mrs. Murphy told the members that the proposed fence made no sense to her and that it would detract from the country setting of the lot.
The members’ discussion concluded that the proposed 4-foot fence would not solve the problem of adults trespassing onto Mr. Condemi’s property. They believe that the proposed fence will change the character of the neighborhood by creating a major visual change to the area. Further, the applicant has sufficient relief by constructing a fence within the ordinance.
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no other communications have been received.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to DENY the variance request for the following reasons:
1. There will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
2. The benefit can be achieved in another way, such as with the use of shrubbery or trees.
3. The request is substantial to the neighborhood.
4. There will be an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty is self-created.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS
DENIED.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 4
2. ZBA File #18-05, Steve Piniewski, 455 Vistula Avenue, Zoned R-3 (Part of Farm Lot 446, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#152.13-1-50.11). Requests an area variance to construct a 30’ x 40’ detached garage in a front yard. No accessory structure shall be located within a front yard, Section 144-24(A)(1)B. NOTE: This variance request was granted on 5/18/04, ZBA File #17-04. In accordance with Section 144-63D(2)(d), this variance has expired.
APPEARANCE: Steve Piniewski, property owner
Anthony Delmonte, Orchard Park Highway Department employee
Mr. Piniewski told the Board that he was advised by his contractor to wait for improved ground conditions before beginning construction and had not realized the variance would expire after 6-months. He told the Board that the drainage problems in the area have been successfully addressed.
The Chairman verified with Mr. Piniewski that there were no changes from the previous appeal and instructed the Secretary to enter the testimony from the May 18, 2004 meeting into the record, which was as follows:
“The Chairman read a correspondence dated 4/28/04 from the Superintendent of Highways, Ron Geitter regarding an existing drainage problem on Velore Avenue. Mr. Geitter states that Mr. Delmonte has proposed to resolve this issue and he is reasonably sure that the standing water problem will be eliminated with the implementation of Mr. Delmonte’s plan.
Mr. Piniewski presented and explained his plans for a proposed garage that he would like to construct. The Chairman established that Mr. Piniewski has a practical difficulty in locating the proposed garage on his property because of the topography that exists. The rear portion drops off and there are existing wetlands.
Mr. Delmonte, a Town of Orchard Park Highway employee, explained the history of the area and told the members that he has designed a plan that he believes will eliminate the drainage problems of the involved area.
The Chairman confirmed with Building Inspector David Holland that the proposed drainage plan is reasonable. Chairman Orffeo also noted that the plan indicates that a turn around will be built and he feels that this will improve the safety of the area.
Mr. Lennartz established that the garage will be use for storage and not for business purposes. He noted that there is a significant drop off behind the home and the garage could not be located at the rear.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 5
PROPONENT:
Mr. Mike Nagumey
5286 Lake Avenue
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Nagumey lives told the members that he lives behind Mr. Piniewski. He described to the members how Mr. Piniewski takes exceptional care of his property.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for, or against, granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received”.
The Chairman verified that the Board members had no additional questions pertaining to this case.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for, or against, granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
The Chairman asked Mr. Piniewski if he required the variance to be extended beyond six months. Mr. Piniewski stated that he would apply for the building permit immediately and did not require any extension.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 6
The Chairman stated the Board would approve the request for six months.
Mr. Liberti made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the request for an area variance for the garage to be located in the front yard with a STIPULATION, for the following reasons:
1. The request is not substantial; the proposal will enhance the neighborhood.
2. The difficulty was self-created by allowing the original granted variance to expire, but that does not preclude the granting of the variance.
The variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. There is to be no outside storage what so ever of any kind around the garage, i.e. tires, etc…
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS
APPROVED.
3. ZBA File #19-05, Dominic Corto, 4063/4065 N. Buffalo Road, Zoned B-3 (Part of Farm Lot 16, Township 9, Range 7; SBL# 162.13-2-1). Requests an area variance to install 2 freestanding signs at this location, one of which has (2) 32 sq.ft. display surfaces. One freestanding sign is permitted, Section 144-38B(1). Display surfaces shall not exceed 20-sq. ft., Section 144-38B(2).
The petitioner failed to appear before the Board.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Liberti, to reschedule this case for review by the Board at the May 17, 2005 meeting under “Old Business”, item #1. The Secretary will contact Mr. Corto with this information.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 7
4. ZBA File #20-05, Robert Bielaszka, 2911 Southwestern Blvd., Zoned B-2 (Part of Farm Lot 409, Township 10, Range 7; SBL #153.06-2-1). Requests an area variance to allow a 96 square foot building face sign. Maximum sign area allowed on this building face is 56 square feet, Section 144-38A(2).
The petitioner failed to appear before the Board.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Liberti, to reschedule this case for review by the Board at the May 17, 2005 meeting under “Old Business”, item #2. The Secretary will contact Mr. Bielaszka with this information.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
5. ZBA File #21-05, Steve Hollins of Hoss, Inc., Vacant Land on Webster Road, Proposed R-3 Zone, (Part of Farm Lot 21, Township 10, Range 7; SBL #’s 161.08-4-5.1 & 161.08-4-6). Requests an area variance for a proposed townhouse project. Petitioner requests a 40’ building setback from the west property line. Minimum setback from property lines for multiple dwellings is 75’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Steven Hollins, petitioner
Mr. Gawenus, Wm. Schutt & Associates
Mr. Hollins told the members that he appeared before the Planning Board as an “Other Business” item on October 13, 2004. The Planning Board did not favor the construction of single family homes at this site, but did support the concept plan presented for 26 affordable townhouses. Mr. Hollins is requesting an area variance so that he may develop the site based on the Planning Board’s suggestion to have the proposed townhouses located 40’ from the western adjacent property line, which is a permanent conservation easement area. By locating the townhouses closer to the conservation easement area, the buffer area is increased on the east side between the project and the ten existing residential properties. It was also established that the Town Board must rezone the property in order to construct townhouses at this site and that the review process by the Planning Board, Conservation Board and Engineering Department must take place. It was noted that public hearings are a part of this process.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 8
IN FAVOR:
Mr. Richard Deacon, owner of the Webster Road proposed project site
6402 Lake Avenue
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Deacon told the Board that he is in favor of the request and explained that it had always been his grandfather’s intention to develop the property.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
IN OPPOSITION:
Rosalyn Polanowski
6226 Webster Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Ms. Polanowski stated that she was speaking for herself and on behalf of several family members present that live here. She stated that Mr. Deacon no longer lives here and that his interest is different from those who do. She told the Board that based on what she was hearing, it sounds like the project will happen. She stated that she believes the request is significant and that the area is concentrated enough. She feels too many units are being jammed into the site, which will add children to the school system and additional traffic. She also believes the character of the neighborhood and the conservation easement area will be changed, creating a negative impact. She feels that rezoning from R2 to R3 is spot zoning and that the project is the wrong direction to go to for this section of our town. She does not believe that a Planning Board member lives in the area and further stated that they are not familiar enough to know how the project will affect the area. She also told the Board that other neighbors are in opposition to the project, but she does not know why they did not attend the meeting. The Chairman confirmed with the secretary that no communications had been received.
Mr. James Rajca
53 Deacon Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Rajca described to the Board the existing water problems at the site and noted that the project could exacerbate this situation further. He also does not want to see the wooded area disturbed or to have townhouses jammed into the site.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 9
Mr. Michael Polanowski
6226 Webster Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Polanowski described the area as busy, with the car dealer activities that go on through out the day. He told the Board that the proposed 26 townhouses would change the character of the neighborhood. He also questions why empty nesters would need three-bedroom townhouses. He would like the Town of Orchard Park to purchase the property and place it into a permanent green space area.
Mr. Deacon responded to the comments made and clarified that the area to be developed is the farmland, and not the wooded wet area. He stated that the wet area would be preserved.
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for, or against, granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
The Zoning Board members noted that the issues voiced by the public in opposition to the variance request concern them. It was further noted that the plan presented is preliminary, with no definite information. The Board would like Mr. Hollins to provide specific information before they make a determination regarding the area variance request.
Mr. Hollins told the Board that he had built a similar project located at 4110 – 4148 Sheldon Road, Hamburg, NY. The Chairman noted that the members would visit this site to observe Mr. Hollins completed project.
Attorney Michael Wolf noted that the proposed project could be built without a variance if the site plan were designed differently. He further stated that perhaps the rezoning of the property should be sought first with the Town Board. Afterwards, Mr. Hollins could return to this Board if he still requires a variance.
The Chairman noted that he would have the secretary contact the neighbors who spoke when the item returns to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He further noted that he would contact Mrs. Lorraine Biryla, Planning Board Chairman regarding this case. He told Mr. Hollins to speak with Attorney Michael Wolf regarding his suggestion to seek the rezoning of the property first.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to ADJOURN the review of this case until the June 21, 2005 meeting, or until the applicant has acquired the following information:
1. Applicant is to provide detailed plans that show the number of buildings, number of bedrooms being offered and the location of the buildings.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 10
2. Applicant is to provide drainage information.
3. Applicant is to contact the Public Safety Commission and have a traffic impact report provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
6. ZBA File #22-05, Steve Hollins & David Hastie, 54 Grand View Trail, Zoned A-1, (Sub Lot 47, Map Cover 2722; SBL#185.17-1-47). Requests 2 area variances to continue construction on this single family dwelling. First, for a front setback of 73.73’. Minimum front setback for this A-1 lot is 75’. Second, for lot coverage of 7.2% (3951 sq.ft.). Maximum lot coverage for this A-1 lot is 7% (3848 sq.ft.), Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Steven Hollins, petitioner
Mr. Hollins explained to the members that human error is responsible for a miscalculation in the square footage of a home currently under construction. He told the members that there was no intent to exceed what is allowed. A bow in the road and snow covering also played a role in the error. The Chairman noted that Mr. Hollins had been given permission to continue framing the home while awaiting his appeal. The construction method used during the framing will allow the portion of the home not in compliance to be cut back to a conforming condition.
The Chairman told Mr. Hollins that he strongly suggests that he never return to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the same mistake, as repeat errors are less likely to be approved.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 11
NO RESPONSE
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for, or against, granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
The members’ discussion concluded that the bow in the road most likely contributed to the error and they did not believe that the mistake was intentional. The topography in the area is challenging. It was noted that this is the second request of this nature in this area. The request will not change the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Liberti, to APPROVE the variance request for the following reasons:
1. This is a minor variance caused by human error.
2. There will be no undesirable effect in the character of the neighborhood.
3. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
4. The request is not substantial.
5. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
6. Although self-created, this does not preclude the granting of the variance.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
7. ZBA File #23-05, Dennis Boyle, Vacant Land east side of Taylor Road, Zoned R-3 (Part of Farm Lot 24, Township 9, Range 7; SBL #’s 161.00-3-26 & 161.19-2-1). Requesting area variances to construct a townhouse project. First, to reduce the 75’ required building setback to property lines, Section 144-9(B), 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 from the right-of-way of a private road is 50’. Minimum distance between building is 60’, Section 144-46C(4)(a). Third, to reduce the setback to driveways and parking lots. Minimum setback to a driveway or parking lot is 25’
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 12
from the front of a building, Section 144-46C(4)(6). Note: This variance request was granted on 7/15/03, ZBA File #15-03. In accordance with Section 14463D(2)(d) it has expired.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Dennis Boyle, petitioner
The Chairman noted that this is a re-hearing of a previously granted variance request that has expired. The Chairman verified with Mr. Boyle that there were no changes from the previous appeal and instructed the Secretary to enter the testimony from the July 15, 2003 meeting into the record which was as follows:
Chairman Orffeo stated that the petitioner had supplied the Board Members with the information that had been requested at the previous meeting. The submitted traffic study dated July 2003 and a letter from Commonwealth Cultural Resources address the remaining SEQR issues.
Mr. Provenzano presented a revised plan for the proposed townhouse project to the members, noting that two additional units have been eliminated. The total number of units being proposed in the revised plan is 88. Mr. Hopkins stated that the project was revised to address the Board’s concerns. The 75’ setback requirement to the property lines adjacent to present or future residential areas has been met. However, the project is not in compliance with the 75’ setback requirement in the areas adjacent to the 219 and the wetlands, as future development in these areas is not likely. Mr. Hopkins explained that he believes the project meets the standards used by the Board in granting area variances. Mr. Hopkins told the members that he feels that there will be less impact on the school system and more green space provided if a town house project is built, as opposed to an apartment complex. In addition, he stated that no substantial opposition to the town house project exists.
The Chairman noted that two variance requests are being made for
nine (9) different locations, a total of eighteen requests for the two variances. The requests being sought were not for “just a few” variances.
The members’ review of the revised project concluded with Mr. Holmwood noting that configuration changes were made in this project. However, the number of units remains the same. Chairman Orffeo commented that having the units built in a reduced area because of an increase in wetlands, as proposed, increases the density of the project.
Mr. Lennartz noted that he feels this is the creation of a crowded neighborhood. He suggests that the units be reduced to
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 13
approximately 68 and he asked the petitioner if this figure would be workable. Mr. Hopkins stated that a reduction to 68 units would be unacceptable.
Ms. Litwin expressed several concerns she has with this project. One concern is that there is no way to gauge that there would be fewer children to affect the school system. She further explained that she feels emergency services might have difficulty reaching the residents in such a dense community. Ms. Litwin stated that the benefit being sought could be achieved in another way. Ms. Litwin feels the project needs to be less dense and that the request is substantial. However, she did not feel that there would be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. She further noted that the traffic study did have several areas that she questions; turning situations, such as turning left out of Taylor Road onto N. Buffalo Road is more difficult than the study indicates.
Mr. Jarocha, while noting that he feels that the project is worthwhile, compared it to putting “Rich Stadium on a postage stamp”.
The Board Members stated that they believe the revised plan remains too dense for the proposed location. Mr. Hopkins asked to be allowed to contact Mr. Boyle via phone and consult with him regarding the Board’s comments. The Chairman agreed to this request and after having contacted Mr. Boyle, Mr. Hopkins told the members that Mr. Boyle is willing to reduce the number of units to 80. The members discussed how buildings could be repositioned and a pavement area reduced to achieve less density. Mr. Hopkins noted that the clubhouse might be lost in the revised plan.
The members concluded that with regards to the density of the proposed project the elimination of two additional units were a great improvement. The members did not want to delay Mr. Boyle and have him return with a reconfiguration for this project, therefore, Mr. Hopkins stated that a reconfiguration would be sent to
the members for their review and input.
Mr. Boyle told the Board that the variances granted expired due to the complexity of the project. He explained that in order to move forward with the approval process, he needs the variances to be in place. Mr. Lennartz certified with Mr. Boyle that since his last appearance there have been no changes in the appeal being made.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 14
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against granting the variance.
(Twice)
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for, or against, granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Ms. Litwin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, 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
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Litwin, to APPROVE the area variances and to EXTEND the expiration time from 6 months to ONE YEAR from today, for the following reasons:
1. The plans are to be revised, eliminating buildings #23 and #24 from the north east corner. The project will consist of a total of 80 individual units, which is 20 buildings plus the clubhouse, which possibly may not be built.
2. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will not be an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 19, 2005 Page 15
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCES ARE HEREBY GRANTED FOR ONE YEAR WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION:
1. An effort will be made to spread the project out and the reconfiguration will be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
8. ZBA File #24-05 James Bermingham, 6161 Boston Ridge Road, Zoned A-1 (Part of Farm Lot 17, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#197.00-4-36). Requests an area variance to construct an addition within 36’ of the rear lot line. Required rear yard depth for this A-1 lot is 50’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. James Bermingham, petitioner
Mr. Bermingham presented plans for a proposed addition to be constructed at the rear of his existing home. He explained to the Board that the proposal has been well thought out and that he believes the plan to be the best way to achieve the benefit he is looking for. He also told the Board that there would be no visual disturbance to his neighbors as his boundaries have a natural screening provided by the e