ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the September 20, 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
EXCUSED: Mark Dietrick, 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 7:30 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 AUGUST 16, 2005 REGULAR MEETING:
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the August 16, 2005 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Litwin, to accept the minutes of the August 16, 2005 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
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. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 2
The Chairman stated that site inspections of all cases presented tonight were made by:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
The Chairman stated that in response to his request Town Assessor Milton Bradshaw sent a correspondence to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Zoning Board File #35-05 indicating the two lots have been combined at 5375 Murphy Road. He complimented the new assessor for his cooperation and thoroughness.
NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #41-05, Michael T. Horrigan, 6515 Cole Road, Zoned A-1 (Part of Farm Lot #58, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#198.00-2-15.12). Requests an area variance to construct a detached garage/storage building which will increase lot coverage to 8.5%. Maximum lot coverage for this A-1 Lot is 7%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations. Note: A variance granted 3/19/96 stipulated that the rear buffer area remain undisturbed, ZBA File #9-96.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Michael Horrigan, property owner and petitioner
In 1996 a variance was granted for this property with the stipulation that the natural buffer area at the rear of the property remain undisturbed. The stipulation was implemented to address the privacy concerns expressed by Mr. La Congo, owner of the adjoining property. Since that time the property was sold. The new owner, Mr. Horrgian, presented plans for a proposed garage/storage building to the members. He also submitted a correspondence dated 9/19/05 from Mr. La Congo stating that he has no objection to the variance request. The Chairman noted that Mr. La Congo is the same owner of the property that had voiced his concerns for buffering during the original variance request. Mr. La Congo’s correspondence was entered into the permanent file.
The members’ questions established that the building will be for storage and that no business will take place here. The building will be 1,800 square feet with vinyl siding and a brick veneer that will match the existing home. A concrete driveway will be installed for access. The existing storage shed will remain.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
PROPONENT:
Mr. James Slominski
6529 Cole Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 3
Mr. Slominski told the Board that he is the neighbor on the south side of Mr. Horrigan’s property and does not object to the request. He explained that buffering is provided by the existing woods and that similar storage sheds exists in the area. He noted that he has one on 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 Board discussed the variance request. Mr. Lennartz noted that a key point for his decision making is the support of the neighbors. Also, Mr. Liberti discussed preserving the existing trees to maintain buffering.
The Chairman noted that he is reluctant to undo what a previous board has done; at the same time the same neighbor who voiced concerns in 1996 now supports the request. He feels this mitigates this aspect. If the request is approved he would like it stipulated that no business operate from the proposed building.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the variance request for the following reasons with a stipulation:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
2. The request is not substantial.
3. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
5. The difficulty is not self created.
6. The circumstances that we have are unique. This is an exception in going against the stipulation tied to the previous approval. The applicant that was being protected does not object to the variance being granted.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. No business is to be operated from this building.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 4
2. The applicant is to use his best efforts to maintain the existing trees.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED WITH A STIPULATION.
2. ZBA File #42-05, Vincent J. Coppola, 15 Pinewood Drive, Zoned R-2 (Sub Lot #5, Map Cover 2204; SBL#172.03-4-12). Requests an area variance to install an 8’ high fence along 115’ of his west property line. Maximum height of a fence in a rear yard is 6 feet, Section 144-22(A) (2). Note: This variance request was granted on 10/19/04, ZBA File #42-04. In accordance with Section 144-63D(2(d), this decision has expired.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Vincent Coppola, property owner and petitioner
Mr. Coppola apologized to the Board and explained the extenuating circumstances that had led him to allow the previously granted variance to expire.
The Chairman asked the secretary to enter into the minutes the relevant information pertaining to Mr. Coppola’s request from the October 19th, 2004 meeting which are as follows;
Mr. Coppola told the Board that he has resided in his home since 1966. He further told the members that his west property line had a significant loss of trees, which eliminated the buffering, that had been in place between him and his neighbor. Mr. Coppola noted that he presently has a direct view into his neighbor’s pool area from his deck. He presented plans to the members to construct an 8’ high fence to achieve privacy for his neighbor and himself. Mr. Coppola stated that he only requires a 6’ high fence at the back of the property and for a portion on the other side because the existing shrubbery provides adequate buffering. He told the members that his neighbor does not object to the 8’ high fence, as it will benefit both of them.
Mr. Coppola submitted a correspondence from his neighbor located on the east side of the property, Mr. & Mrs. John Earrington, of 11 Pinewood Drive, indicating that they have no objection to the granting of the variance. Mr. Coppola noted that his neighbor located at the back of his property has, also, not expressed any objections.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 5
The members’ questions established that the fence would be white vinyl and that the main reason for the request is for privacy. It was also established that the property slopes on the west side and that a 6’ fence would not bring relief. The construction of the fence will not result in the removal of the existing trees.
Mr. Lennartz noted that there is no dispute between the neighbors and that the construction of the fence was based on a mutual need for privacy. Mr. Lennartz stated that he has no objections to the request.
Chairman Orffeo noted that the applicant could fill in the sloping area and install a 6’ fence on top of the fill, achieving the same results, but that this would be more costly.
Mr. Coppola submitted a correspondence dated October 7, 2004 supporting the variance request from Mr. & Mrs. John Errington of 11 Pinewood Drive that he received after the October 19, 2004 meeting. This was entered into 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.
(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.
Mr. Liberti made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, to GRANT the variance request for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. The benefit sought cannot be achieved in some other way.
3. The request is not substantial.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 6
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
5. The difficulty was not self created. The topography of the property created the problem.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
3. ZBA File #43-05, Virginia Korzec, 3 Royalcrest Road, Zoned R-3 (Sub Lot #92, Map Cover 2174; SBL#152.15-2-29). Requests an area variance to construct an addition with a front setback of 25’. Minimum front setback for this R-3 Zone is 30’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mrs. Virginia Korzec, property owner and petitioner
Mrs. Korzec presented plans and photographs of a proposed addition she desires to achieve additional living space in her home. The addition will be similar to an existing home in her neighborhood. The members’ questions established that siding used on the addition will match the existing home.
The Chairman noted that a practical difficulty exists for the applicant in that due to the design of the home (a bump-out in the back area) it is not economical to construct the addition in another location. In addition, the goals being sought by the applicant will not be achieved if it is constructed at another location.
The Chairman noted that a correspondence from 5 neighboring properties was received stating that they support the variance request. This is 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.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 7
(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.
Ms. Litwin made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, to GRANT the variance request for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created.
2. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty was not 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 MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
4. ZBA File #44-05, Janet Taber, 5845 Scherff Road, Zoned A-1 (Part of Farm Lot #3, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#185.03-3-30). Requests an area variance to reduce a legal non-conforming front setback by 8’. Setbacks already less than the minimum required shall not be further reduced, Section 144-14.
APPEARANCE: Mrs. Janet Taber, property owner and petitioner
Mr. William White, contractor
Mr. White told the Board that he has been contracted to construct the proposed deck for Mrs. Taber. The deck will measure 8 ft. x 8 ft. in size with a front entrance to the home.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 8
The Chairman noted that the applicant has a practical difficulty in that the lot is an irregular shape with “the right-of-way bouncing all over the place”. This situation developed when the County moved the road. Before the road had been moved, the home had been closer to the level of the road; now it exists with a 6 foot drop.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
PROPONENT:
Mrs. Susan Cook
5845 Scherff Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mrs. Cook told the Board that she lives adjacent to Mrs. Taber and that she feels that Mrs. Taber needs access to the front of her home, noting that “it is quite a jump”.
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 noted two correspondences were received from neighbors supporting the request. This is part of the permanent file.
Mr. Lennartz made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Liberti, to GRANT the variance request for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood, it will enhance the area.
2. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 9
5. The difficulty was not 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 MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
5. ZBA File #45-05, Linda Parker & KGC Realty, 3735 N. Buffalo Road, Zoned B-3 (Part of Farm Lot 15, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#162.05-2-8). Requests an area variance to construct an office building with a 20’ setback at the side yard of a corner lot. Required setback for this side yard is 50’ minimum, Section 144-22D. Note: Permit is to include demolition of existing office building & barn.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Dario Cipriani, Historic Square Agency
Mr. Andy Romanowski, Alliance Homes
Mr. Romanowski told the members that he has been contracted to build a new office building on this corner lot and that a larger setback is required by the ordinance. A variance is needed; however the proposed new building will be more conforming than the existing one. In addition, both the deteriorating building and the barn will be removed.
The members reviewed the site plan with Mr. Romanowski. Placement of the proposed building was verified and it was established that the foot print is very similar to the existing building. The new building will be a total of 1,120 sq. ft. and the front will face North Buffalo Street.
The Chairman noted that he feels that it will be an improvement to have the dilapidated buildings removed and to erect a building that is more compliant with the code.
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. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 10
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.
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.
Mr. Lennartz noted that the proposal before the Board is a good move for the property.
Mr. Liberti made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the variance request for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
The project will enhance the area.
2. The request is not substantial.
3. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
4. The difficulty was not 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 MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 11
6. ZBA File #46-05, The Krog Corporation, Vacant Land at 2 Centre Drive, Zoned I-1 (Part of Farm Lot 23, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#172.07-1-9.11). Requests an area variance to construct a three-story office building. The maximum height of buildings in this I-1 Zone is 2-1/2 stories/40’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Peter Krog, owner/developer
Ms. Gaye Krog
Mr. Krog presented and explained plans for the proposed three-story office building. Due to the topography of the area, the building will appear to be 2-1/2 stories high from the road. He told the Board that the building will be less than 40 feet at its highest point.
Mr. Lennartz discussed the appearance of the building with Mr. Krog and he concluded that the Krog Corporation is very conscientious with how the proposed buiding will look. The project can be characterized as a class “A” office building.
The Chairman noted that the applicant has a practical difficulty because of the slope of the land. The building will appear to be a 2-1/2 story building located in the business part of the town.
The Board noted that the business park is well maintained.
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.
Mr. Holmwood 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.
ZBA Mtg. #9 Reg. Mtg. #9 September 20, 2005 Page 12
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 members’ discussion concluded with noting that the project will be good for Orchard Park. The Chairman noted that the Krog Corporation has done a nice job in the town with the business park.
Ms. Litwin made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the variance with a stipulation for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
2. Due to the topography the benefit cannot be sought in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood; it will be a positive effect with a new office building that will enhance the business park.
5. The difficulty was not self created.
This request is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The building to be constructed is to be a class “A” office building.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
ORFFEO AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE