February 1, 2005

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 1

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the February 1, 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 7:38 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 JANUARY 18, 2005 REGULAR MEETING:

Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the January 18, 2005 Zoning Board are deferred to the March 15, 2005 meeting and at that time they will be voted on.

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:

ORFFEO AYE

DIETRIEK AYE

HOLMWOOD AYE

LENNARTZ AYE

LIBERTI AYE

LITWIN AYE

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 2

The Chairman stated that due to illness, the petitioner has asked that item #10, Zoning Board File #13-05, be removed from the agenda and re-scheduled. The Chairman asked the Secretary to place this item on the March 15, 2005 agenda as item #1, “New Business”.

NEW BUSINESS

1. ZBA File #04-05, Thomas Calpin, 32 Hampton Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 46, Map Cover 2611; SBL#173-19-2-13). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a front setback of 30’. Minimum front setback for this R-1 lot is 60’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard and Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. William Schutt, Wm. Schutt & Associates

The Chairman verified that Mr. Schutt is authorized to represent the petitioner. He also stated that the legal notice should read that the minimum front setback for an R-1 lot at this location is 70’, not 60’.

Mr. Schutt told the Board that the topography of Mr. Calpin’s property is unique because of a 30-foot drop from the front to the rear of the property. Tree clearing and filling have taken place at the site, but additional removal of trees and filling will have to take place in order to meet the required setbacks. He told the Board that Mr. Calpin would like to limit these actions to what has already taken place because additional clearing and filling will create a financial hardship for the applicant. Mr. Schutt stated that he believes the 30-foot front setback variance being requested will not interrupt the visual “streetscape” of the cul-de-sac area. He also stated that Mr. Calpin is open to suggestions from the Board.

Mr. Holmwood discussed the remaining buildable lots at this site. It was learned that the lot adjacent to Mr. Calpin’s is similar with its topography. Mr. Schutt, again, explained to the members that he did not feel that the proposed setback would be significantly noticed within this cul-de-sac area.

Mr. Liberti asked Mr. Schutt to verify the actual cost of the hardship that the petitioner would incur. Mr. Schutt explained to the members that he did not have a dollar figure available, but that the hardship would involve higher foundation and filling costs because of the topography of the site. Mr. Liberti stated that he could not understand how a hardship could be claimed if the dollar amount was not known. The Chairman agreed that without having a specific dollar amount, they were unable to review the claim of a hardship.

Mr. Lennartz stated that in his eyes the character of the neighborhood would be changed if the variance were granted. He stated that the proposed home would “stick out” among the established homes that comply with the setback requirements. He further stated that if the home were located on the straight portion going into the cul-de-sac he would not have a problem with the request. However, being located on the circular portion of the cul-de-sac, it seems to him

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 3

that the proposed home would not be in line with the existing homes. He believes that the proposed home would create a dramatic change to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Schutt discussed the fact that the adjacent vacant lot could help with the transition, as this lot has the same topographical problem. He also told the Board that both lots have remained vacant due to their topography. Mr. Lennartz stated that he takes into consideration the neighborhood and the people who have invested their hard-earned dollars establishing their homes. He feels that having the proposed home located 30 to 40 feet closer to the road would make it appear to “stick out” among the rest.

Ms. Litwin established that Mr. Calpin created his own hardship, as he knew the type of home he could construct upon this lot when he purchased it. If this variance request is approved, she does not feel that that it should be seen as a message that the adjacent lot should be granted a variance.

Mr. Dietriek established that the purchase price of Mr. Calpin’s lot was the same as the existing flat lots located here. He told Mr. Schutt that at the time of purchase the applicant should have been aware that there would be certain costs involved with this property.

The Chairman feels that adhering to the 70’ setback requirement will not create the need for additional tree clearing, since approximately two thirds of this lot has already been cleared. The Chairman also confirmed with Mr. Schutt that Mr. Calpin plans to construct the proposed home for himself and reside there. He further noted that Mr. Calpin had the opportunity to due diligence; walk the lot he was to build upon, realize the cost of constructing a house at this site and contact the Building Inspector for requirements, as far as setbacks, size, etc… The Chairman asked Mr. Schutt if Mr. Calpin had been ignorant or unaware of the Town ordinances relating to this lot. Mr. Schutt told the Board that he did not believe that Mr. Calpin had been ignorant of the Town ordinances.

The Chairman stated that correspondence opposing the granting of the variance had been received from Mr. & Mrs. Austin of 31 Hampton Court and from Mr. Glenn Beecroft of 28 Hampton Court. These letters are part of the permanent file.

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.

AGAINST:

Mr. Nicholas Korach

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 4

5 High Point Court

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Korach commended the Board on visiting the site and for their questions posed to Mr. Schutt. He feels that granting the variance will change the character of the neighborhood. The homes in the area have complied with the code and Mr. Korach feels that Mr. Calpin should, too. He described to the Board the dump trucks that the residents endured while fill was being added to Mr. Calpin’s site. He stated that the removal of the mature trees was ludicrous and that he has reason to believe that Mr. Calpin will not be residing at this home.

Mr. Paul Gray

75 Deer Run

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Gray commended the Board on their process of reviewing this case. He explained that he fears a “zigzag” effect will be established and that this will set a precedent. He feels that this will not be aesthetically pleasing and will create a poor reflection on the Town of Orchard Park. He believes that this is a self-created problem and he finds the tree removal that occurred on the property as a tragedy.

Mark Anders

24 Hampton Court

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Anders feels that there is no hardship. He discussed the dump trucks and tree removal that occurred at this property. He told the Board that homes are built all over the country with topography similar to this site.

Mr. Peter Walsh

23 Hampton Court

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Walsh told the Board that this site was once a gorgeous lot. He asked the Board to deny the variance request.

Mr. Matt Watson

19 Hampton Court

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Watson stated that he opposes the variance request.

Mr. Michael Graeber

37 Hampton Court

Orchard Park, NY 14127

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 5

Mr. Graeber submitted a petition signed by 43 area neighbors stating that they do not support the granting of the variance. The Chairman instructed the Secretary to enter this document into the permanent file. Mr. Graeber told the Board that he had to construct his home according to the code and that Mr. Calpin should have to, also.

Mr. Mark Bellis

2 High Point

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Bellis stated that he is opposed to granting Mr. Calpin the variance. He suggests that the proposed home be adjusted to fit the lot. He would like the restrictions in this neighborhood to be abided by. He told the Board that over 800 dump trucks trips were counted during the filling that had taken place at this site. He does not believe the fill was compacted for a home to be built upon and no soil testing was performed. He noted that a similar lot with a home upon it is located across the street. It has a small back yard but is nice, and the setback requirements were met. He also discussed the tree line and noted that the proposed house would interfere with this if the variance were granted.

Mr. Glen Beecroft

28 Hampton Court

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Beecroft stated that he bought his property for the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He feels that it would be unfair to grant the variance, as the proposed home would be closer to the street. Locating the home closer to the street would ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood and diminish the value of the existing homes.

The Chairman discussed with the Building Inspector the “street tree” ordinance and soil stability. It was learned that if it were not practical to plant the tree at the front of a property, then the tree would be planted elsewhere by the Town. It was further learned that the Engineering Department has a third party perform soil testing to determine stability.

The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against the granting of the variance.

The Secretary stated no communications have been received.

Mr. Lennartz stated that he feels that the character of the neighborhood would be changed if the variance were to be granted. Mr. Dietriek agreed, stating that he

believes the hardship is self-created. The Chairman noted that the essential claim of the hardship is the cost, which was not provided by the applicant. He noted that Mr. Calpin had the opportunity to due diligence before purchasing this property.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 6

Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Litwin, to DENY the variance request for the following reasons:

1. There will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to the nearby properties by creating a 30-foot setback requirement versus a 70-foot setback.

2. The benefit can be achieved in another way. The house can be constructed meeting the setback. The question was undefined as to what the actual cost would be.

3. The request is substantial. The requirement is 70’ and the applicant is requesting 30’.

4. There will be an adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood and on the environmental conditions; for example, the large clearing that took place on the lot.

5. The difficulty was self-created.

6. The neighbors, almost the entire neighborhood, object to the granting of the variance.

7. The key-missing piece of information is the extra cost of the foundation that would have to be put in.

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.

2. ZBA File #05-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 9 Mourning Dove Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 59, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-2-27). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 12.73%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The Chairman noted that the appeals to be made by the petitioner for Zoning Board file #’s 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 would be fundamentally the same. He told Mr.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 7

Piestrak that he would only need to present the appeal once. The Secretary read each petition and the Board reviewed each variance request. Any additional information not covered in the initial presentation for 9 Mourning Dove Court, Zoning Board File #5-05 will be entered into the record for that particular case.

The appeal made by the applicants for all six (6) cases (referenced to above) is as follows:

Mr. Dominic Piestrak gave a brief history of the Birdsong subdivision and discussed land donations to the Town of Orchard Park that totaled approximately 165 acres of this site. The land donations and the compliance with a request to have the subdivision entranceway exceed the standard sixty-six foot requirement has adversely affected the plans for the Horizons “showcase” homes. The proposed homes exceed the 12% lot coverage. Mr. Piestrak told the members that he did not want to “down size” the Mourning Dove neighborhood, because potential homebuyers in this area expect larger homes with a 3-car garage. He further told the Board that all side yard setback requirements have been met and that the builders involved have been made aware of the 12% lot coverage requirement.

Mr. Dominic Piestrak told the Board that approximately 25% of the site had been donated to the Town of Orchard Park. The Chairman discussed with the applicants the fact that their donation of potentially buildable land to the Town, even with 28.7 acres of wetlands, exceeds the Town requirement.

Mr. Lennartz posed the question of whether or not a potential homebuyer would need a variance to construct a home in the subdivision that had been showcased in the Horizon’s Home Show. The Board members discussed the fact that they did not want future appeals filed from this subdivision requesting to exceed the 12% lot coverage. Mr. Dominic Piestrak explained that the area of the subdivision adjacent to “Fox Chapel” was the only location that he believes would have this problem. However, he feels that the homes at that location should be downsized to achieve a balance with the existing Fox Chapel homes. The Chairman noted that this particular location appears on the presented site plan as lots 43 through 53. He stated that exceeding the lot coverage slightly does not concern him as much as the fact that variances may be sought in the future on all of these particular parcels if homes of this type are desired.

The Chairman stated that Mr. John Marlow, 47 Brookins Green Drive, Orchard Park, had submitted a letter opposing the granting of the variance requests. In addition, an email had been received from Mr. & Mrs. Rosinsky, 1 Valley View Drive, Orchard Park, stating that they are in opposition to the variance requests.

The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 8

Mr. Ron Cichocki

Provincetown Apartments

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Mr. Cichocki stated that he resides at the Provincetown Apartments, but that it is his intention to build his home on lot #74 located within this subdivision. Mr. Cichocki was drawn to the deep lots and shared lake. He supports the variance requests and does not want the homes downsized. He would like the character of the neighborhood that he expects to be kept intact.

Mr. Joseph McGiver

Buffalo Niagara Builder’s Association

90 Sylvan Parkway

West Amherst, NY 14228

Mr. McGiver told the Board that the Buffalo Niagara Builder’s Association is sponsoring the Horizon’s Home Show. The builders involved in the show had believed that the lot coverage was grandfathered at 15%. He referenced Thomas Johnson, developer, who had been granted an area variance within this subdivision. He explained to the Board that the covered porch areas make the homes become non-compliant.

Mr. Tim Berger

Essex Homes of WNY

8940 Main Street

Clarence, NY 14031

Mr. Berger submitted the plot plan and house plans for sub lot #65, noting that this is one of the appeals that has been filed (case #8-05, 8 Mourning Dove Court). He explained to the Board that exceeding the lot coverage would not make the proposed home look different from the other homes located in this subdivision. He believes that the proposed home fits the lot quite nicely. He further believes that potential homebuyers in this subdivision do not want the homes downsized. He told the Board that the purpose of the Horizon’s Home Show is to display a builder’s very best product.

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.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 9

The Chairman noted that the developer had donated more recreational land than what was required. He also noted that the applicants created the problem with the road as the road was constructed larger than what was requested to achieve a certain look.

The Chairman stated that he believes the Horizon’s Home Show is good for the community of Orchard Park. He stated that he had several conversations with Councilman Stan Jemiolo, who concurs with this belief. He told the applicants that the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting date had been change to show a sign of good faith to the developer, on behalf of the Town, in an effort to accommodate the builder’s timeline. The Board discussed the possibility of future variance requests in the area of sub lots 43 through 53 located near the Fox Chapel subdivision. This discussion concluded with the Board determining that the homes in this area should be built to comply with lot coverage requirements so that there will be no aesthetics problem with the neighboring Fox Chapel subdivision.

The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to APPROVE the area variance request for 9 Mourning Dove Court in view of the fact that this is a cul-de-sac, which considers itself in the same neighborhood, for the following reasons, with a STIPULATION:

1. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.

2. The relief could be granted in another way, but the mechanism of granting that relief would probably be more harmful than the granting of the variance. The request within this neighborhood, and within this neighborhood only, is not substantial.

3. There is no adverse impact on this self-contained neighborhood, within Mourning Dove Court.

4. The difficulty was self-created, but that does not preclude the approval of the variance.

This variance is granted for 9 Mourning Dove Court with the following stipulation:

1. The developer agrees that lots #43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53 and lots 35 through 42 located on Woodthrush Trail, will not have area variances sought on any of these individual lots.

THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:

ORFFEO AYE

HOLMWOOD AYE

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 10

LENNARTZ AYE

LIBERTI AYE

LITWIN AYE

THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST

IS APPROVED WITH A STIPULATION.

3. ZBA File #06-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 5 Mourning Dove Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 57, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173-12-2-25). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 12.68%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The previous presentation regarding 9 Mourning Dove Court, its questions, responses and materials are hereby noted as part of the record for 5 Mourning Dove Court.

No additional information or comments were made with regards to 5 Mourning Dove Court.

The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to APPROVE the area variance request for 5 Mourning Dove Court in view of the fact that this is a cul-de-sac, which considers itself in the same neighborhood, for the following reasons, with a STIPULATION:

1. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.

3. There is no adverse impact on this self-contained neighborhood, within Mourning Dove Court.

4. The difficulty was self-created, but that does not preclude the approval of the variance.

This variance is granted for the 5 Mourning Dove Court with the following stipulation:

1. The developer agrees that lots #43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53 and lots 35 through 42 located on Woodthrush Trail, will not have area variances sought on any of these individual lots.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 11

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 WITH A STIPULATION.

4. ZBA File #07-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 10 Mourning Dove Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 64, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-2-3). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 13.4%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The previous presentation regarding 9 Mourning Dove Court, its questions,

responses and materials are hereby noted as part of the record for 10 Mourning Dove Court.

No additional information or comments were made with regards to 10 Mourning Dove Court.

The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to APPROVE the area variance request for 10 Mourning Dove Court in view of the fact that this is a cul-de-sac, which considers itself in the same neighborhood, for the following reasons, with a STIPULATION:

1. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.

3. There is no adverse impact on this self-contained neighborhood, within Mourning Dove Court.

4. The difficulty was self-created, but that does not preclude the approval of the variance.

This variance is granted for the 10 Mourning Dove Court with the following stipulation:

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 12

1. The developer agrees that lots #43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53 and lots 35 through 42 located on Woodthrush Trail, will not have area variances sought on any of these individual lots.

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 WITH A STIPULATION.

5. ZBA File #08-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 8 Mourning Dove Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 65, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-2-4). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 13.5%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The previous presentation regarding 9 Mourning Dove Court, its questions, responses and materials are hereby noted as part of the record for 8 Mourning Dove Court.

No additional information or comments were made with regards to 8 Mourning Dove Court.

The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to APPROVE the area variance request for 8 Mourning Dove Court in view of the fact that this is a cul-de-sac, which considers itself in the same neighborhood, for the following reasons, with a STIPULATION:

1. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.

3. There is no adverse impact on this self-contained neighborhood, within Mourning Dove Court.

4. The difficulty was self-created, but that does not preclude the approval of

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 13

the variance.

This variance is granted for the 8 Mourning Dove Court with the following stipulation:

1. The developer agrees that lots #43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53 and lots 35 through 42 located on Woodthrush Trail, will not have area variances sought on any of these individual lots.

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 WITH A STIPULATION.

6. ZBA File #09-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 7 Mourning Dove Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 58, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-2-26). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 14.2%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 Lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The previous presentation regarding 9 Mourning Dove Court, its questions, responses and materials are hereby noted as part of the record for 7 Mourning Dove Court.

No additional information or comments were made with regards to 7 Mourning Dove Court.

The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to APPROVE the area variance request for 7 Mourning Dove Court in view of the fact that this is a cul-de-sac, which considers itself in the same neighborhood, for the following reasons, with a STIPULATION:

1. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 14

3. There is no adverse impact on this self-contained neighborhood, within Mourning Dove Court.

4. The difficulty was self-created, but that does not preclude the approval of the variance.

This variance is granted for the 7 Mourning Dove Court with the following stipulation:

1. The developer agrees that lots #43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53 and lots 35 through 42 located on Woodthrush Trail, will not have area variances sought on any of these individual lots.

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 WITH A STIPULATION.

7. ZBA File #10-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 6 Mourning Dove Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 66, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-2-5). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 14.92%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The previous presentation regarding 9 Mourning Dove Court, its questions, responses and materials are hereby noted as part of the record for 6 Mourning Dove Court.

No additional information or comments were made with regards to 6 Mourning Dove Court.

The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to APPROVE the area variance request for 6 Mourning Dove Court in view of the fact that this is a cul-de-sac, which considers itself in the same neighborhood, for the following reasons, with a STIPULATION:

1. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties.

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 15

3. There is no adverse impact on this self-contained neighborhood, within Mourning Dove Court.

4. The difficulty was self-created, but that does not preclude the approval of the variance.

This variance is granted for the 6 Mourning Dove Court with the following stipulation:

1. The developer agrees that lots #43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53 and lots 35 through 42 located on Woodthrush Trail, will not have area variances sought on any of these individual lots.

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 WITH A STIPULATION.

8. ZBA File #11-05, Nick Piestrak & Birdsong Development LLC, 43 Birdsong Parkway, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 76, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-1-26). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 12.74%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 Lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.

APPEARANCE: Mr. Nick Piestrak, developer

Mr. Dominic Piestrak, developer

The previous presentation regarding 9 Mourning Dove Court, its questions, responses and materials are hereby noted as part of the record for 43 Birdsong Parkway.

IN ADDITION:

Ms. Litwin referred to the earlier presentation and the need to maintain conformity in the Birdsong Parkway area. The Board reviewed the plan and Mr. Piestrak explained that the proposed garage creates the noncompliance issue. He told the Board that a homebuyer considering homes in a certain price range

ZBA Mtg. #2 Reg. Mtg. #2 February 1, 2005 Page 16

anticipates having a three-car garage.