ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the March 21, 2006 meeting held in the Basement Public Meeting Room, S4295 South Buffalo Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Lennartz, Chairman
Kim Bowers
Donald Holmwood Joseph Liberti
Jo Ann Litwin
Richard Zajac, 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 7:36 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 FEBRUARY 21, 2006 REGULAR MEETING:
A motion was made by Ms. Litwin, seconded Mr. Holmwood, to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD 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
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 2
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:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
ZAJAC AYE
OLD BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #49-05, John Anticola, 2899 Angle Road, Zoned R-3 (Part of Farm Lot 403, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#153.07-2-8). Requests an area variance to construct a pole barn/storage building with a building area of 1,680 sq. ft. Total building area of accessory structures will be 2,260 sq. ft. Building area of dwelling is 1,090 sq. ft. Accessory area shall not dominate principal use area, Section 144-5B. This case was tabled by the Board pending a drainage review by the Town Engineer Department.
The Chairman noted that the applicant requests his appeal be rescheduled to the May 16, 2006 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #06-06, Nawal Taher & Nick Piestrak, 12 Sandpiper Court, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 23, Map Cover 3207; SBL#173.12-2-12). Requests an area variance to construct a single family dwelling with a lot coverage area of 13%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 12%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Ms. Nawal M. Taher, applicant
Ms. Karen Denecke, MJ Peterson/Tucker Homes
Ms. Litwin asked the applicant to explain if there were special circumstances as to why the applicant needs a home this large. Ms. Denecke told the Board that when the floor plans were being designed and they realized that were exceeding the 12% lot coverage, Ms. Taher reduced the plan as much as possible without affecting the integrity of the floor plans.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 3
Mr. Holmwood noted that the site has been besieged with problems involving buildings that are too large for the lots.
Ms. Denecke told the Board that she understands this; however, she feels that the consumer is not going to build a small home upon a lot that they have paid a significant sum of money for. She noted that the proposed home is smaller than previous homes the Board has granted variance approvals for.
Mr. Liberti established that Ms. Taher will close next week on the property. He asked if a compromise could be reached in reducing the request before the Board. Ms. Denecke told the Board that they have already reduced the proposed home.
Ms. Litwin noted that Mr. Piestrak has been before the Board with the same issue several times and was well aware of the ordinance regarding lot coverage. She established with Ms. Denecke that Mr. Piestrak did not make Ms. Taher aware of the lot coverage during the negotiations of the purchase.
Ms. Bowers established that the original proposal was for the home to have garage space for four cars; it was reduced to three. Ms. Bowers stated that she does not know how the Board can keep having appeals of this type come before them and say they are an exception, as everything will be an exception.
The Chairman noted he feels that the Board granted concessions on variances in the past as a consideration related to a home show and a land donation to the town. At the last meeting, with a gentlemen’s agreement, it was made clear to Mr. Piestrak that that he must not market land allowing lot coverage beyond 12%. He stated the Board made it clear that it is not their position to change zoning and that the Board’s position is to grant relief. Relief, in his opinion, does not mean to grant a variance on every lot that Mr. Piestrak would like to sell. The Chairman is very disappointed if, in fact, Mr. Piestrak has sold a lot and did not make the 12% lot coverage clear to Ms. Taher. He is additionally disappointed with the attorneys involved that did not know or convey our ordinance requirement. However, Mr. Piestrak has been here many times and he knows the ordinance very well. The rules and regulations of Orchard Park are very clear; 12% maximum coverage. The Chairman noted that Mr. Piestrak is not here tonight to answer questions as to what he did and this is very upsetting to him.
Ms. Litwin stated that it troubles her that the petitioner was not made aware of the 12% lot coverage.
Mr. Liberti noted that he would like the applicant to consider and offer a compromise.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 4
The Chairman noted that, “The law is 12% lot coverage; Mr. Piestrak knows that it is 12%, it is on the books of the Town as 12%, any attorney that is researching this should know that it is 12%, any architect designing the house knows that it is 12%”. Ms. Denecke stated that the Board does make exceptions and that is the whole purpose of the hearing.
The Board discussed the request further. Mr. Zajac noted, “At what point do we start changing law?” “How many variances are too many?”
Ms. Litwin stated that the Board needs to speak with Mr. Piestrak.
The Chairman stated that the question before them is a very difficult question and it must be resolved.
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 that no communications have been received.
The Chairman made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Bowers, to DENY the area variance request for the following reasons:
1. There will be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood was created under the law to have 12% land coverage.
2. The benefit can be achieved in another way.
3. Granting the variance will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
4. The difficulty is self created.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 5
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN NAY
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) IN FAVOR AND ONE (1) AGAINST, THE MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE IS HEREBY PASSED.
Ms. Denecke questioned how the Board could previously approve variances for homes that were larger at this site. The Chairman stated that each the decision made by the Board is an individual decision. They do not set precedence; every application has its own merit.
2. ZBA File #07-06, Robert Sands, 65 Fox Chapel Drive, Zoned R-1 (Sub Lot 21, Map Cover 2285; SBL#173.16-1-36). Requests an area variance to construct an addition which will increase lot coverage to 15.9%. Maximum lot coverage for this R-1 lot is 15%, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Daryl Martin, Architect
It was noted that documentation had been received authorizing Mr. Martin to represent Mr. Sands in this appeal. Mr. Martin explained that the Sand’s desire to construct an indoor pool house. The property presently contains their existing home and storage shed. He explained the project to the members, noting that the variance being requested is to allow adequate area to clean and move around the pool.
The Chairman discussed the importance of the proposed structure fitting into the character of the neighborhood. He established with Mr. Martin that the proposed building would be constructed with materials matching the existing Tudor style home and he confirmed that roofing applied will be asphalt singles.
The member’s questions established that the existing shed is used for the storage of lawn equipment and that the exterior of the building will be stucco.
Several members expressed a desire to have a compromise made with the variance request being made. The Board discussed reducing the variance request or having the storage shed removed.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 6
The Chairman noted that Mr. & Mrs. Faulise of 69 Fox Chapel and Mr. & Mrs. Dowling, of 61 Fox Chapel signed a petition supporting the variance request.
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.
OPPONENT:
Mr. Christopher Faulise
69 Fox Chapel
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Faulise noted that he is not actually against the request. He explained drainage concerns that he had. Mr. Martin explained that the project will improve the drainage of the site.
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated that no communications have been received.
Building Inspector David Holland noted that if the shed were removed and the proposed building was shortened by 8’ or 9’ a variance would not be needed.
The Board discussed further having a compromise being reached. Ms. Litwin and Ms. Bowers discussed their feelings regarding the existing shed. They did not feel removing the shed was an answer to reaching a compromise. Mr. Holmwood discussed reducing the request by 100 sq. feet.
The Chairman told Mr. Martin that their goal is to provide minimal relief.
Ms. Litwin made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Liberti, to GRANT the area variance with a STIPULATUION for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 7
2. The benefit sought cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will not be an adverse effect or physical impact or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The request is reduced by 100 sq. feet.
2. The structure is to be constructed like the look of the home.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED WITH A STIPULATION.
3. ZBA File #08-06, Orchard Park United Methodist Church, 3700 N. Buffalo Road, Zoned R-2 (Part of Farm Lot 21, Township 10, Range 7; SBL#161.08-3-29.1). Requests a variance to install a freestanding sign with 35 sq. ft. of sign area per side. This service organization identification sign shall not exceed the maximum height and size requirements for signs located in this R-2 Zone, Section 144-35J.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Merrill Porter, Chairman of Trustees
Mr. Porter presented photos of the signage being proposed for this site. He explained that the State had repositioned a section of North Buffalo Road during the recent construction along this site. Mr. Porter told the Board that if signage is installed per the ordinance, it will be difficult to read. He requests that a variance be granted to allow a larger sign. He also told the members that the sign will be illuminated.
The members discussed the request and concluded that if the variance is granted they would like all other signage removed. It was established that the signage would be placed perpendicular to the road enabling it to be viewed from both sides.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 8
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 that no communications have been received.
Ms. Litwin made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bowers, 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:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Ms. Bowers made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the variance request with a STIPULATION 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 another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 9
4. There will be no adverse effects to the environment
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. All other signage must be removed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED WITH A STIPULATION.
4. ZBA File #09-06 Benderson Development Company, proposed retail/restaurant buildings, Vacant Land, east side of North Buffalo Road, Zoned B-2/R-2 (Part of Farm Lot 16, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#162.13-1-13). Requests two area variances. The first request is to permit a maximum building height of 38.25 feet. Maximum height of a building in this B-2 Zone is 35 feet, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, yard & Bulk Regulations. The second request is to permit an 8 foot high fence along the north property line. Maximum height of fence is 3 feet within the front yard and 6 feet in other yards, Section 144-22A (1) & (2).
APPEARANCE: Mr. Eric Recoon, Benderson Development
Mr. Recoon presented and explained the project to the members. He told the Board that the design of the proposed buildings was created to provide Orchard Park with an architecturally significant look. To achieve this goal a few of the elements they propose to use are brick, stone, copulas and peaks. He told the members that a variance is being requested for the proposed two peaks. The peaks are what make the buildings nonconforming in height. A variance is also being sought to accommodate the request of the affected neighbor on the north side of the project. He would like Benderson Development to install and maintain an 8’ high fence to buffer his property.
The Chairman pointed out that the SEQR filed with the application describes having front yard parking for 7 vehicles. Mr. Recoon told the Board that a variance for front yard parking was withdrawn after revisions were made to the plan, based on Conservation and Planning Board recommendations. Mr. Recoon assured the Board that no future variance will be sought for front
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 10
yard parking. The Chairman complimented the project and noted that the site is located in the entranceway to the Village of Orchard Park. He verified with Mr. Recoon that a separate application will be made for signage.
The Board discussed the requests further and established that the fence will be wooden and match the fence of the affected neighbor. It was learned that the project originally proposed to rezone the rear portion of the property bordered by residential homes. In addition, the original request proposed to construct three buildings. However, after meetings with residents and various members of the Town Boards the plan was revised as presented.
Mr. Recoon also told the members that Benderson Development will not be seeking a variance for a front yard parking.
Ms. Bowers established that one peak will be located at the street end and the other at the opposite end. Mr. Recoon told the Board that the mind set is to not create identical looking buildings.
Mr. Holmwood discussed the site plan and parking with Mr. Recoon. It was established that there will be 187 parking spaces, deliveries will occur at the rear of each tenant’s space and none of the tenants contracted use tractor trailer delivery.
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.
Mr. Dave Stott
15 Locust Drive
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Stott stated that he is north of the propose project. He explained to the Board that his main objection is that this represents a precedent setting case in the heart of Orchard Park bordering on a residential neighborhood. He believes the changes being proposed will echo up and down the strip. Lighting and drainage are concerns; but, he is not sure that tractor trailers won’t be making deliveries. He feels there are still huge questions remaining with this project and that it is bad policy for the Town of Orchard Park to grant a
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 11
variance that will echo up and down the strip. He feels that it is not a good for his neighborhood and he does not want Benderson Development requesting variances through a “piece meal” process, one at a time.
The Chairman stated that every request is an individual request; the Board never sets a precedent. The important issue for him is to have no front yard parking. The applicant, on record, agrees that there will be no front yard parking. As far as the building, drainage, etcetera these are aspects that are reviewed by the Planning Board and public hearings are held for comments. He stated that there are two issues before this Board; one is a request from the neighbor for a privacy fence. The Chairman stated that this seems reasonable to him. He further stated that the property is zoned for the proposed use. He noted that he feels that this is one of the most important retail developments proposed for the Town as well as for the Village and that it is important that the project is done right. It appears to him that the project is being developed the right way. The height issue, with regards to the building, is for design and ascetic purposes. The building is not being added on to. He told Mr. Stott that the project will go through the process of review by the established Boards and that the Zoning Board of Appeals is only one of the Boards. Chairman Lennartz stated that this Board takes the requests seriously. “Our goal is to listen and grant minimum relief”. As far as “piece meal”, he does not see that happening and does not believe that this is the intent of the applicant.
Mr. Recoon responded to Mr. Stott’s comments, noting that he had met with Mr. Stott several times during the initial proposal request. At that time the proposal was for a rezoning of the back portion of the property and to construct three buildings, one of which was a two-story building. Ultimately, the project was amended based on the comments of the residents, Planning Board and Town Board. Mr. Recoon stated he feels the comments made by Mr. Stott are disingenuous and he takes exception to the characterization that Benderson Development is coming in “piece meal”, with one variance at a time and not letting the Town or community know what is going on. “This is what we want to build, this is the site plan it sits upon…” “I stated for the record, as you indicated, we are not, nor will we be seeking a variance on the front yard parking”. “And we are clearly coming in for some signage requests, which are simply not yet finalized”. “To suggest that the changes that we are asking for are precedent setting changes that would be bad policy and impact the neighborhood, to me that is an disingenuous comment”. “A fence for the neighbor and a relatively insignificant height variance relative to a building that looks like this, in this portion of North Buffalo Road, I think, is respectfully, not a significant request”.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 12
Ms. Patty Lester
6 Locust Drive
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Ms. Lester asked Mr. Recoon to verify that Benderson Development will not be back to request the rezoning of the rear property. Mr. Recoon stated that portion is zoned for residential and that he would not be seeking a rezoning.
Mr. Holmwood discussed the site plan further with Mr. Recoon. He verified that there will be two entrances and 187 parking spaces at this site.
The Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated that no communications have been received.
Ms. Bowers 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 modified short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Mr. Liberti made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Litwin, to APPROVE the two area variances with a STIPULATION based on the following:
1. The request is not substantial.
2. The difficulty is self created, but that does not preclude the granting of the variance.
3. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district; it will actually enhance the area.
The variances are granted with the following stipulation:
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 13
1. The 8’ high fence along the property line is to be installed at the setback and continue all the way down.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED WITH A STIPULATION.
5. ZBA File #10-06, Thomas Kam, 3675 Abbott Road, Zoned B-2 (Sub Lots 1, 2 & part of 3, Map Cover 1091; SBL#161.09-1-1). Requests an area variance to allow a change in use from Residential (Single Family) to Business (Hair Salon). Existing front setback is 18.91 feet. Existing side setback is 7.61 feet. Required front setback for this transition yard is 30 ft minimum, Section 144-22E (1). Required side setback is 20 feet minimum, Section 144-22E (2).
The Chairman recused himself from this case and Acting Chairwoman Jo Ann Litwin presided in the review of this case. It was further noted that the Alternate Member, Richard Zajac will be voting.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Frank Brzezinski, Registered Landscape Architect
Mr. Kam, applicant and owner of property
Mr. Young, applicant and owner of property
Mr. Brzezinski explained that the applicants desire to convert an existing residential home into a hair salon business. He stated that two variances are being requested. A correspondence dated March 18, 2006 was submitted for the Board Members’ review from Mr. Michael O’Donnell, the neighbor on the north side of the project, indicating that he supports the variance request.
Mr. Holmwood expressed concerns regarding traffic safety. Mr. Brzezinski reviewed the plan with Mr. Holmwood and explained that a double driveway will be used on the south side of the home to accommodate the flow of traffic.
Mr. Liberti established that the parking lot will be asphalt, there will be 21 parking spaces and that the exterior will be refurbished. Mr. Kam told the Board that the building and garage will be made to match. He also told the
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 14
Board that a sign and the hours of operation will be typical to other businesses in the Orchard Park area.
Ms. Bowers established that this is a two-story building and that both floors will be used for the proposed salon business. The removal of existing trees will occur, however they will be replaced per a proposed landscape plan. Mr. Kam told the Board that the parking spaces will extend to the rear of the building. It was further established that drainage will be improved at the site, the existing sewer system will not be affected by the project and that lighting will be per the ordinance. Mr. Kam reviewed the improvements that would be made to the building, noting that the building was odd and a challenge, at best, to refurbish.
The Acting Chairwoman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairwoman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairwoman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated that no communications have been received.
Ms. Bowers made a motion, seconded by Mr. Liberti, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted modified short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LITWIN AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
ZAJAC AYE
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 15
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Ms. Bowers made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the variances based on the following:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of 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.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LITWIN AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
ZAJAC AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
6. ZBA File #11-06, Doodle Bugs Child Care, Vacant Land located on Red Tail Road, Zoned I-1 (Part of Farm Lot 24, Township 10, Range 7, SBL#152.19-1-26.11). Requests a use variance to operate a “day care center” at this site. Permitted uses in this I-1 Zone do not include “day care centers”, Section 144-9A, Schedule of Use Controls.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Anthony Insinna, owner
Mr. Insinna presented and explained his plan to the Board for a proposed child care center. He told the Board that he feels this site is an ideal location and setting for the center.
The members’ questions established that the building will ascetically fit in with the existing buildings. An aluminum fence will be constructed 75 feet from the roadway for safety at the center. The preliminary plan is designed to allow bus drop-off and pick-up at the site.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 16
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 that no communications have been received.
Mr. Liberti made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bowers, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted modified short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Ms. Litwin made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the Use Variance based on the following:
1. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
2. The alleged hardship was not self-created; it will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
3. Strict application of the regulations will deprive the applicant of economic
use or benefit from this property.
ZBA Mtg. #3 Reg. Mtg. #3 March 21, 2006 Page 17
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
LENNARTZ AYE
BOWERS AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LIBERTI AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS HEREBY PASSED.
There being no further business to be presented to the Board at this time, the Chairman, Robert J. Lennartz adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
DATED: April 18, 2006 Respectfully submitted,
REVIEWED: May 4, 2006 Rosemary Seivert, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Robert J. Lennartz, Chairman