Town Zoning Appeal
Zoning Board Minutes - September 26, 2006
By
Dec 8, 2006, 11:29
TOWN OF LOCKPORT
ZONING BOARD of APPEALS MEETING - September 26 2006
PRESENT:
Charles Dahlquist
Tim Lederhaus
Larry Haseley
Frank Loiars
Paul Siejak Chairman
Donna Pieszala Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Mike Brown Deputy Building Inspector
Dan Seaman, Attorney
Jane Trombley, Secretary
The Zoning Board ofAppeals meeting wascalled to order at
7:30pm by Chairman Siejak who then led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOTION made by Member Loiars seconded by Member Dahlquist to approve the August 29, 2006 minutes. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
CASE# 1 6062 Shaffer Road - Eileen Hornquist,John & Sharon Hayek - SBL#139.00-1-9 Requesting a use variance to construct a single family residence in an Agricultural District. John & Sharon Hayek presenting.
Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing Mr Hayek stated they would like to relocate to Niagara County from Erie County as they have heard good things about the area it has public water and a police presence as well. Also, because they own racehorses and are currently paying to have them boarded that they would like to keep on their own property and they would also like to purchase a
pleasure horse. Mr Hayek states Mrs Hornquist is the owner of 28.8 acres and she would like to parcel off the
property and retain 8 acres that will include the property her home is situated on. Mr Hayek stated his property line would be about 250' from her home Mr Hayek states the property across the road in an open field with only one home on the street Mr Hayek states his home will be 100'
off Dysinger Road facing Dysinger Road and about 75 to 100' off Shaffer Road.
Attorney Seaman asked if they would be pasturing horses on the property and Mr Hayek stated yes. Mr Hayek stated currently there are cows pasturing on the property that belong to a neighbor who plows Mrs Hornquist's driveway for her no money is exchanged.
Alternate Member Pieszala questioned if the property is grandfathered and Attorney Seaman stated Mrs Hornquist loses it by splitting the lot to allow split of property with a new house being built in a farming use area.
Member Loiars asked if any crops have been planted recently. Mr Hayek replied no crops, just flat open pasture.
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 26 2006
Page 2
Member Loiars asked if the property would be fenced.
Mrs Hayek stated actually two fences.
Member Dahlquist asked if there are any water issues. Mr Hayek stated a perk test has not been done yet as their purchase is conditional on getting the variance but he has been assured there is nothing out of the ordinary.
Attorney Seaman asked ifthere is abam on the property and Mr Hayek replied no barn, just a small farmhouse.
Attorney Seaman asked what type offence was being considered and Mrs Hayek replied white vinyl or electrobraid is being considered, not barbed wire.
Attorney Seaman asked whether there had been any income generated from farming activities in recent past. Mr Hayek replied there had not. He has been advised that the pasturing of cattle on the property does not produce income. Attorney Seaman noted that the house Mr Hayek
intends to build in connection with the horse pasturing of his racehorses actually brings that part of the property into conformance with the agricultural district requirement. The variance is to allow the split of the
property with Mrs Hornquist's house and 8 acres remaining.
Member Loiars asked if this property will be used for business and Mr Hayek replied personal use only and the bam will be at least 300' off Dysinger Road.
Chairman Siejak asked how many horses they plan on and Mr Hayek stated 2 to 3, usually it would be I pleasure horse and 1 racehorse on layoff.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public comment. Hearing none, Chairman Siejak closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made by Member Loiars seconded by Member Lederhaus to grant Eileen Hornquist, John & Sharon Hayek a use variance to allow for a split of the property with the existing residence staying and to construct a single family residence with horse pasturing in an agricultural zone based upon the following findings:
1 - the zoning regulations and restrictions have caused
unnecessary hardships to the applicants because for
each presented use under the Agricultural District
the applicant,Eileen Hornquist, cannot realize a
reasonable return as demonstrated by the size of the
property and the fact that the only agricultural use
of the property has been for pasturing of cattle at no
charge to the farmer;
2 - the hardship is unique and does not apply to a
substantial portion of the district;
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 26 2006
Page 3
3 - the requested use variance will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood, and
4 - the hardship has not been self created.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
CASE#2 6015 South Transit Road -
Robert Miller Construction SBL#138.09-1-17A
Requesting an area variance to construct a 6,000 square foot building 45' from the south property line where the required setback is 50'. Glenn Miller presenting.
Mr Miller presented a concept footprint in February 2005 and was granted variances that haven't been done.
Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing Attorney Seaman gave a brief update on the requested variance for a 103.34' setback instead of the required 75 to 100' that was caused by the Planning Board requesting the
relocation of the building and they also asked him to move the building more south on the lot because of traffic issues. Mr Miller stated there is a solid fence along the north border by the trailer park and the pylon sign is
existing and they would like to add 5' to the bottom for the NAPPA store. The sign is 30' high and 8' from the bottom to grade. Mr Miller stated there is not a lot of
signage on the building and nothing on the back of the
building.
Member Haseley didn't feel filling in the bottom of the sign would really be changing the sign.
Member Loiars asked if the sign would be lit and Mr Miller replied yes,but not flashing.
Member Lederhaus questioned the signage for the other tenants and Mr Miller stated he will try to manipulate the existing sign.
Chairman Siejak questioned the portable sign shown in the picture and Deputy Building Inspector Brown stated they had gotten a 30 day permit for it.
Member Loiars asked if the property is in the flood plane and if hazardous liquids will be housed on the property. Mr Miller replied not this part of the parcel, but at one corner of the lot, and he doesn't believe anything
hazardous will be there.
Alternate Member Pieszala stated the landscaping from the 2-'05 concept plan looked good.
Member Haseley asked if the same amount ofgreen space will be required as was previously approved and Deputy Building Inspector Brown stated actually a little less would be required now, but no real change.
Zoning Board ofAppeals
September 26 2006
Page 4
Attorney Seaman stated the landscaping on the site plan complies with the CCOD required landscaping but the previous variances from 2'05 should be reaffirmed and the height variance of the pole from 25' to 30' is pre-
existing but avariance is required due to the change in the sign. Attorney Seaman also stated cement block cannot be used in a CCOD.
Mr Miller showed an updated drawing labeled "Exhibit A" with pilasters, split face block creating panels to make it look like overhead doors, awnings, textured relief blocks, and more glass panels.
Member Haseley asked if some glass blocks could replace some of the textured blocks and be counted as windows as they are still short on glass.
MOTION made by Member Loiars seconded by Member Dahlquist to table the variance request and keep the Public Hearing open until the October 24, 2006 meeting.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
MOTION made by Member Haseley, seconded by Member Loiars, to approve tonight's decisions.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
MOTION made by Member Dahlquist, seconded by Member Lederhaus, to adjourn at 8:35 pm.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
The next Zoning Board ofAppeals meeting will be held on October 24th at 7:30 pm.
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN OF LOCKPORT
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
© Copyright eLockport.com
|