Town Zoning Appeal
Zoning Board Minutes - May 22, 2007
By
Jun 29, 2007, 08:50
TOWN OF LOCKPORT
ZONING BOARD ofAPPEALS
Minutes
May 22 2007
Charles Dahlquist
Larry Haseley
Tim Lederhaus
Frank Loiars
Paul Siejak Chairman
Mike Bartus Alternate
ALSO PRESENT Mike Brown Deputy Building Inspector
Dan Seaman Attorney
Jane Trombley Secretary
The May 22 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 7 30 pm by Chairman Siejak who then led the Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Siejak noted all Board
members are present
MOTION made by Member Loiars seconded by Member Dahlquist to accept the April 24, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes with the correction of changing the date March 22nd to March 27th regarding the meeting minutes.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
CASE 1
5859 5863 South Transit Road 6210 6216 Hamm Road
SBL# 138.05-3-1,138.05-3-2,138.05-3-3,138.05-3-4.
Mac Donald's USA LLC Returning Applicant seeking area variances in order to construct a 4654 sq ft restaurant and associated site improvements. Chairman Siejak noted the Public Hearing remains open Chairman Siejak reminded everyone that the site plan has not been approved by the Planning Board yet and their next work session will be
on June 12 2007. Chairman Siejak also stated a letter had been received by a Board member from a Niagara County Sheriff Deputy regarding a statement made at a prior meeting regarding the use of the median for traffic flow stating that the median is not a staging area to hold vehicles New York State Vehicle Traffic Law Excerpts Article 24 Sect.1110 & Sect.1111 received as "5-22 Exhibit A". Attorney Seaman stated he would advise the Board on the traffic law received.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public Comment Hearing none Chairman Siejak closed the Public Hearing and stated no action can be taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals until the Planning Board has acted.
CASE#2
6470 Rapids Road SBL#152.01-3-51 - John Sgroi- Returning with revised plan - Applicant seeking area variance to construct a family room addition and an attached garage. Chairman Siejak stated the Public Hearing has remained open. Mr Sgroi stated based on the last meeting he has deleted the detached garage, kept the family room and increased the size of the existing garage by 12'.
Mr Sgroi stated this plan has a smaller family room on it that will still have an entryway and laundry room but has eliminated the mud room and made the entryway and laundry room smaller. Attorney Seaman asked for the date of the
revised plan and Mr Sgroi stated 5-10-07, the original plan was dated 3-28-07.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 2
Member Lederhaus asked if all the siding and roof will match and Mr Sgroi stated yes.
Member Dahlquist asked if the floor plan is the same and Mr Sgroi stated you now have to go up two steps.
Member Loiars asked if there will be gutters on the new garage and Mr Sgroi stated yes. Member Loiars stated he feels this plan will be an asset to the area.
Member Haseley stated he feels the changes are great.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public Comment. Hearing none he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made by Member Haseley seconded by Member Lederhaus under Town Law 267b, to approve the area variance on the revised application dated 5-10-07 for John Sgroi at 6470 Rapids Road to construct a family room addition and an enlarged garage on the existing building with the garage being 33' from the east property line, based upon the following findings:
1. the variance will not create an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood;
2. the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved
by any other feasible method for the applicant to
pursue;
3. the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect
or impact on the environmental conditions in the
neighborhood;
5. and the difficulty was not self created.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
CASE#3 6598 Harvest Ridge Way SBL#138.04-2-26
Walter Potocki Applicant requesting an area variance to locate a residential storage building 6 feet from East property line and 3 feet from the South property line. Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing, Mr Potocki stated he has a 10' x 16' shed that he thought only had to be 5' from the property line based on what his neighbors have, and later found out that wasn't the case. Mr Potocki presented his plan to his neighbors and they preferred the placement where the shed currently is.
Mr Potocki stated it is by the berm and blocks traffic noise as well as prevents objects from flying into Raymond Road as they use their yard a lot and play volleyball in
the yard. Mr Potocki stated this is a unique situation as he has a corner lot with the side lot facing Raymond Road. He stated if you are heading south the pine trees and berm hide the shed and coming from the south you only see the shed for a short time. Mr Potocki states the community has complimented them on the project.
Member Loiars asked if the trees along the berm belong to him and Mr Potocki stated yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 3
Member Haseley questioned if the placement ofthe shed on the easement is a problem and Deputy Building Inspector Brown stated they realize if there is an issue, they will have to move the shed.
Member Haseley questioned if the drainage easement is a problem for the Town. Attorney Seaman asked if there are existing drainage problems and Mr Potocki stated no, he used stone for good drainage around the shed. Attorney Seaman said that aside from zoning requirements, a permanent structure could not be located on a Town drainage easement. Mr Potocki verified that the shed would be moved as necessary to accommodate drainage.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public comment. Hearing none he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made by Member Lederhaus, seconded by Member Dahlquiest under Town Law 267b to approve the area variance for Walter Potocki of 6598 Harvest Ridge Way for the location of his shed, a moveable shed 6 feet from the East property line and 3 feet from the South property line that can be moved if there is a drainage problem for the Town based on the following findings:
1. the variance will not produce an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood;
2. the benefit sought cannot be achieved by any other
feasible method;
3. the variance is not substantial;
4. the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect
or impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood;
5. and the difficulty was not self created.
The variance is conditional on the structure being moved as required by the Town for drainage and ditch purposes.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
CASE#4 4878 Sunset Drive SBL#108.01-2-28 - Paul R. Bicker & Linda Sojda Applicants - seeking a variance to operate a cattery in their home and to erect a sign in a residential district. Paul Bicker presenting with Attorney, John Dorn.
Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing. Mr Dorn showed a picture of the proposed sign and stated the home was constructed in 1830 and is in an Rl district but this is a very rural area. Mr Dorn stated the sign which notes the
home is the Old Crapsey House which Mr Bicker had made when he first purchased the home would be placed 44' from the center of the road and he would add the cattery sign that would be 6" high and 3' wide and 4' from the
ground, to the same posts.
Member Loiars asked when the home was built and Mr Bicker stated construction was started in 1830 and completed around 1835. Mr Bicker showed a catalog view of what the cattery would look like and said basically it is a hotel
for cats. Mr Bicker stated he is on disability from Delphi and this would offer income for him to help maintain the home.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 4
Mr Bicker stated he has a signed letter from his closest neighbor that he submitted as "Exhibit I" showing her support for the service and a list of other neighbors that he contacted, who also stated they had no problem with the
requested variance, received as "Exhibit II".
Chairman Siejak asked how many cats they would have at one time and Mr Bicker stated they would start with 9 cages and if it goes well increase to 12 cages, with each cat having a separate cage all on the first floor in the only
bedroom on the first floor.
Member Loiars asked if the sign would impede the view to getting onto the road and Mr Bicker stated no. Member Loiars asked if the sign would be lit and Mr Bicker stated no, that he had the sign made when he purchased the structure and when he asked the contractor to put it up, the contractor told him he needed a permit, so it was never put up. Mr Bicker stated there will be no structural
changes to the house and the zoning was changed over the years from AR to R1.
Chairman Siejak asked Mr Bicker if a license is required for this project and Mr Bicker stated the Department of Health stated no, all he needs is approval by the
Town Board and to change his homeowners policy.
Member Loiars questioned what will be done about the fragrance from that many cats and Mr Bicker stated they are going to put in a new HEPA filter system.
Member Dahlquist asked how the waste would be handled and Mr Bicker stated changed frequently, at least daily and properly disposed of.
Chairman Siejak asked where the waste will be collected. Mr Bicker stated some are under the cages, some have separate rooms in the cages.
Member Loiars asked how they will keep track of who the cat is and Mr Bicker stated put names on the cages and only let out one at a time. Mr Bicker stated the
cats will be in the home 100% of the time other than when arriving and departing.
Attorney Seaman asked how much property Mr Bicker owns and he stated about 2 acres and he is in the process of purchasing about 3 acres behind him, so he will have a little over 4 acres total. Attorney Seaman asked if he plans to subdivide and he stated no, the land is all woods and brush. Mr Seaman asked if Mr Bicker will be able to realize a reasonable return on the land and Mr Bicker stated no, the land is landlocked that is why the owner, Gary Cappola, is willing to sell it.
Member Loiars asked how long the cats will stay. Mr Bicker stated it all depends, it could be 3 months a week or a weekend.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 5
Chairman Siejak asked if they will be left in the cages all that time and Mr Bicker stated no. they will be allowed out to roam in the home only, never outside, one at
a time. Member Loiars asked what if the owner wants them walked and Mr Bicker stated they won't be able to be outside, but they will have a view of the outside where they will have birdhouses and if they have an unruly cat it would have to be moved to the living room to separate it from the other cats.
Member Dahlquist asked if there would be a veterinarian available and Mr Bicker stated yes, they have contacted their own veterinarian, Louis Burdick with the plan.
Member Loiars asked how many bedrooms are in the home and Mr Bicker stated 4, 3 up and 1 down.
Member Haseley asked if the sign has already been made and Mr Bicker stated only the house sign that he has had since he purchased the property, not the cattery sign.
Member Haseley stated this is historic property and the sign appears similar to the signs the Town has, redwood with raised letters. Picture of sign received as "Exhibit 3".
Chairman Siejak asked for Public Comment.
Carrie Potocki of 6598 Harvest Ridge Way asked to see the picture of the cat condos and was shown them but had no comment.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Siejak closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made under Town Law 267b by Member Loiars, seconded by Member Lederhaus to grant the special use variance to Paul Bicker and his wife Linda Sojda to operate a cattery in their home and to erect the proposed sign at 4878
Sunset Drive with the following conditions:
1. the sign shall never be lighted;
2. a HEPA filter will be installed in the home;
3. there will not be an outside kennel run;
4. no more than 12 cats at any time;
5. no exterior evidence of the use;
6. no employees;
7. the cats will be confined to one room for caging
purposes;
8. and this variance is only for the current owners,
Paul Bicker and his wife, Linda Sojda and shall
terminate if the premise is transferred based on the
following findings:
1. the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return on the
property;
2. the property is unique and does not apply to
a substantial portion of the neighborhood;
3. the variance will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood;
4. and the difficulty is not self created.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 6
CASE#5 6557 Matthew Drive SBL#152.01-3-78 -
Matthew Lynn Jones - Applicant requesting an area variance to locate an above ground pool 5 feet from
side and back property lines. Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing. Mr Jones stated he has a 24' above ground pool and he has a sheet signed by his 3 immediate
neighbors that don't object to the project that was received as "Exhibit I". Mr Jones stated his yard is fenced in by a 6' high vinyl fence, and the pool is
not able to be seen. Mr Jones stated he would like the pool as far back from the patio as possible to make better use of the property and open up the yard and he has a wooden playground in one corner of the lot.
Member Lederhaus asked if there will be a deck and Mr Jones replied no.
Member Haseley asked if the survey map is correct and Mr Jones stated yes, the north and south is wrong though. Member Haseley stated this would be on the easement.
Attorney Seaman asked if there is a ditch there and Mr Jones stated no, just a drain in either corner. Attorney Seaman asked what is behind Mr Jones' property and Mr Jones stated another home. Attorney Seaman stated the Town needs to maintain drainage and that Town Law prohibits erecting permanent structures on drainage easements.
Member Lederhaus asked if the fence is on the easement and Mr Jones stated,yes. Member Lederhaus stated if the easement needs to be utilized the fence will have to be moved.
Member Loiars asked if the patio is going to be covered and Mr Jones stated no, and it was just poured today. It is off the easement, 10' off the back lot and 5' off
the side. Member Loiars asked if there will be a diving board and Mr Jones stated no.
Mr Jones asked to amend his variance to read 5' from the side property line and 10' from the rear property line so as not to encroach on the drainage easement.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public Comment. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made under Town Law 267b by Member Haseley, seconded by Member Lederhaus to grant Matthew and Lynn Jones of 6557 Matthew Drive an area variance to construct an above ground pool 5' from the side setback and 10'
from the rear property line based on the following findings:
1. the variance will not create an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood;
2. the benefit cannot be achieved by another feasible
method;
3. the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect
on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood;
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 7
5. and the difficulty was not self created.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
CASE#6 4626 Day Road SBL#110.01-1-14 - Rose Bridwell -
Applicant requesting area variance to construct
a single family residence 50 feet from East property
line. Ms Bridwell presenting with Joseph Critelli, builder. Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing.
Ms Bridwell stated she owns the property and lives
in the existing home and would like to build a new home where the lot is triangular shaped and doesn't feel she can move it back any farther on the lot. Member Loiars stated the land is 10' to 12'higher than the road and Mr Critelli stated they would cut it down for access to the road. He said that the home would be about 2040 square feet. Member Loiars asked why the home can't be moved
back farther and Ms Bridwell stated there are trees there she doesn't want to cut down. Ms Bridwell stated her daughter will live in the existing home and she doesn't want to interfere with her daughter's view. The frontage of the lot is 167', is zoned Rl and 100' is required.
Member Loiars asked when they plan on starting and Mr Critelli stated as soon as possible.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public Comment.
John Murray of4625 Day Road stated he lives across the street from Rose and understands why she would like the home closer to the road but feels it also makes it closer to his home and as he looks out his front window she would be looking down on him. Mr Murray stated he feels the placement of the home is more preference than necessity would decrease his property's value and would prefer it not be so close to him . Mr Murray asked to see the site plan and was shown. Mr Murray stated his view now is of the woods, he is outdoors even in the winter viewing the trees, birds, etc. and doesn't want a view of a home even
though he is sure it will be a nice home. Mr Murray stated his home is probably 150' from the road. The site plan shows the home being 12' from railway and 10' is minimum required.
Chairman Siejak asked if the home could be moved back so there would be less of a variance required and Ms Bridwell stated she would hate to cut down those trees.
Member Haseley asked about the shed in the back and Ms Bridwell stated that would be coming down and Member Haseley stated he felt the home could be moved back about 10'. Ms Bridwell asked to amend her application to a 60'
front setback instead of 50 '.
Hearing no further Public Comment Chairman Siejak closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made under Town Law 267b by Member Loiars, seconded by Member Haseley to grant an area variance to Rose Bridwell at 4626 Day Road to construct
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22 2007
Page 8
a single family home with a setback of 60' on a major road instead of the required 70' as the requested variance will:
1. not create an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties;
2. the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved
by another feasible method;
3. the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect
or impact on the neighborhood;
5. the difficulty was not self created.
The variance granted is the minimum variance that can be granted while addressing the applicant's difficulties adequately.
4 Ayes, 1 Nay (Member Dahlquist) Carried.
CASE#7 6688 Lincoln Avenue SBL#124.03-1-11 R.B. Mac
Properties LLC - Applicant requesting an area variance for a vestibule with a 59'6" set back instead
of the required 75'. David Allan and Robert Burke presenting. The application has been amended as they are changing an existing two family use to a use with
business offices in the front and an apartment in the back. Chairman Siejak opened the Public Hearing. Mr Allan stated they are taking the deck off and adding a 7'4" deep x 8' 10" wide vestibule and also amending the facade of the
building. Mr Allan stated they are also proposing a ground sign that was submitted to the Planning Board and meets the requirements.
Member Loiars asked why the dumpster is on the property and Mr Allan stated they are gutting the inside of the building and changing the pitch of the roof.
Member Loiars asked if the driveway will still be circular and Mr Allan stated yes.
Chairman Siejak asked for Public Comment. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION made under Town Law 267b by Member Lederhaus, seconded by Member Loiars to grant the requested variance of R.B. Mac Properties LLC to renovate the home and keep the apartment and build the vestibule with a 59'6"
set back instead of the required 75' based on the following findings:
1. the variance will not produce an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood;
2. the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved
by another feasible method;
3. the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect
on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood;
5. the alleged difficulty was not self created.
5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
Zoning Board ofAppeals
May 22 2007
Page 9
MOTION made by Member Loiars, seconded by Member Dahlquist to approve tonight's decisions. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
Sean Hopkins, attorney for MacDonald's submitted a letter on behalf of MacDonald's. Mr Hopkins asked if a special meeting could be scheduled for this project as they are on a tight schedule with the property owners and the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting isn't scheduled until June 26th. Attorney Seaman stated it is not unusual to have a special meeting for the more complicated projects.
MOTION made by Member Lederhaus, seconded by Member Loiars
to hold a special meeting on June 14th at 5 00 pm for review of the MacDonald's project. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Carried.
MOTION made by Member Dahlquist, seconded by Member Haseley to adjourn. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Carried.
The next regular Zoning Board ofAppeals meeting will be June 26, 2007 at 7:30 pm.
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN OF LOCKPORT
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
© Copyright eLockport.com
|