Wednesday, May, 20, 2009 7:00 PM Council Office

Zoning Board of Appeals Office of Building Inspections

3301 Broadway Cheektowaga, NY 14227

Regular Meeting http://www.town.cheektowaga.ny.us

~ Minutes ~

Wednesday, May, 20, 2009 7:00 PM Council Office

Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 Printed 7/30/2009

I. Call to Order

A Regular Meeting was called to order of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York at the Town Hall Council Chambers, 3301 Broadway, corner of Union Road, in said town on May 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM there were:

Attendee Name Organization Title Status ArrivedAndrew A. Kulyk Town of Cheektowaga Chairman PresentRobert J. Brandon Town of Cheektowaga Board Member PresentJane Wiercioch Town of Cheektowaga Board Member PresentJames Speyer Town of Cheektowaga Board Member PresentJohn M. Ptak Town of Cheektowaga Board Member PresentJeffrey L. Whiting Esq. Town of Cheektowaga Deputy Town Attorney Present

II. Tabled Items

2008-1 Our Lady of Czestochowa Church/Philip J. Silvestri2160 Clinton StreetArea Variance

Appeal:1. The applicant's proposed building addition will be a minimum of (2) feet from the east property line, whereas, law requires (20) feet minimum.2. The applicant's proposed building addition will be (8) feet from the west property line, whereas, law requires (19) feet or half the height of the building.3. The applicant's parcel split will cause the existing school building to be (8) feet from the side property line, whereas, law requires (15) feet minimum or half the height of the building.4. The applicant's parcel split will cause the existing church to be (0) feet from the side property line, whereas, law requires (20) feet minimum or half the height of the building, whichever is greater.5. The applicant's parcel split will cause the existing rectory building to be (0) feet to the side property line, whereas, law requires (30) feet.6. The applicant's proposed parking area will be (0) feet along the north property line, whereas, law requires (10) feet minimum.7. The applicant's proposed parking area will be (0) feet from the road right of way, whereas, law requires (25) feet minimum.8. The applicant's refuse enclosure will be (5) feet from the side property line, whereas, law does not permit such obstructions with the required side yard of (15) feet.9. The applicant's proposed (24) unit apartment building will provide (15) off street parking spaces, whereas, law requires (49) parking spaces.

Regular Meeting Minutes May 20, 2009


Comments:There has been no contact with the applicant. The item has been on the table since April 2008. If they are still interested, they will have to resubmit a variance request. The one year waiting period to resubmit will be waived.

History:12/17/08 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 01/14/0901/14/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 02/18/09Our Lady of Czestochowa Church - no one present to represent the Church.02/18/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 03/18/09Our Lady of Czestochowa Church - no one present to represent the Church.03/18/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 04/15/09Our Lady of Czestochowa Church - no one present to represent the Church.04/15/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 05/20/09No one present to represent the church.

RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Andrew A. Kulyk, Jane WierciochSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2008-2 Upstate Niagara Cooperative/Charles Basil/Basil Ford/Joseph Basil1717 Walden AvenueArea Variance

Appeal:1) The applicant desires (zero) feet along the south line, whereas, law requires (10) feet of landscaping along interior lot lines.2) The applicant's new car dealership is separate, on a different parcel, down the road from the used car sales proposed location, whereas, law permits used car sales only as accessory to new car sales.

Comments:Mr. Whiting was in contact with the applicant and they indicated that the transaction fell through and they were no longer interested in the variance

Motion made by Mr. Kulyk and seconded by Mr. Speyer to deny the motion. The Board grants unanimous consent for a request by the applicant for reconsideration in the future.

History:12/17/08 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 01/14/0901/14/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 02/18/09Upstate Niagara Cooperative - no one present to represent the Cooperative.02/18/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 03/18/09Upstate Niagara Cooperative - no one present to represent the Cooperative.03/18/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 04/15/09Upstate Niagara Cooperative - no one present to represent the Cooperative04/15/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 05/20/09No one present to represent the Cooperative.



RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Andrew A. Kulyk, ChairmanSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-8 Timothy Caya2739 Union RoadTemporary Permit

Appeal:The applicant desires to establish a motor service use on a temporary basis, whereas, the Zoning Law does not permit motor service uses within a C-Retail Business Zoning District.

Comments:

History:03/18/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 04/15/09Mr. Kulyk stated that he and the other members had difficulty locating the property because there was no number on the building. Mr.Caya stated that it was the old Battery store. The building has been vacant for a year and he has been trying to sell it. He is unable to sell it with the current zoning designation. However, he has had about 20 people interested in purchasing the building for light automotive repair. He prefers light repair because he does not want to have parts, oil and junk on the property. The board was in agreement with this type of business. The location was appropriate. There was a comment by Mr. Brandon that a use permit would be more appropriate than a Temporary Permit. If the Temporary Permit is granted, the building could not be sold for motor service.

The applicant mentioned that a business that makes golf carts may be interested in buying the building. This is the type of business that he would like. The tenant would like to display the carts outdoors. Mr. Kulyk commented that outdoor display is not allowed by the Zoning Law and that similar requests in the past were generally not met with approval by the Board. A variance would be needed for the outdoor display.

Mr. Kulyk suggested that the motion be tabled until such a time that a tenant is found. The applicant would then present to the board the type of business for board approval with possible conditions. After 2 years, he could request a use variance.

There was no public comment.04/15/09 Zoning Board of Appeals TABLED Next: 05/20/09No comment.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/17/2009 7:00 PMMOVER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak



III. New Items

2009-21 Pastor Douglas R. Sexton/Hedstrom Memorial Baptist Church55 Losson RoadArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant desires to establish a second freestanding sign, whereas, the Zoning Law permits one freestanding sign per building lot/parcel.

Comments:Pastor Sexton stated that a second sign is needed to advertise the addiction program that the Church offers. It will replace the banner that was previously granted because it was good for only 30 days. People who can benefit from the program pass by all the time and could miss the message if it was up only 30 days.

A rendering of the sign was shown. It will be two sided, internally lit. The message will not be changeable. It will be located on the other side of the driveway from where the banner was.

There was no public comment.

History:

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: James Speyer, Board MemberSECONDER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-22 Ernest J. Wisniewski159 David AvenueArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s covered front porch will be (9.58) feet from the front property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (18) eighteen feet.

Comments:There was a discussion as to why this application was re-submitted. A variance was granted last month. The applicant is asking for a less of a setback than originally requested. It was decided to table the request to find out why it was re-submitted.

History:

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/17/2009 7:00 PMMOVER: James Speyer, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak



2009-23 Michael Rokitka/Melissa Reyome206 Oehman BoulevardArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s proposed fence will exceed (3.5) feet in height, whereas, the Zoning Law limits the maximum height to (3.5) feet within the required front yard of (25) twenty five feet.

Comments:The applicant wants to install a 4.5 foot wooden fence around their property, running the fence in front of the property 10 feet from the sidewalk, which will put it on the edge of their property line. Their property line is 10 feet from the sidewalk. They have a large dog that they fear will jump over the fence when children are playing on the sidewalk. The applicant showed the board members on his land survey where he intends to put the fence. Mrs. Wiercioch asked about a vision obstruction when exiting the driveway. The applicant stated that this would not be a problem.

Mr. Brandon suggested that the 4.5 foot fence be installed 3 feet from their property line, or 13 feet from the sidewalk. This has been a general practice in the past. The applicant was agreeable to this condition.


Motion made by Mr. Brandon and seconded by Mr Ptak to grant the motion as requested, with the condition that the 4.5 foot fence be installed 3 feet from the front property line, or 13 feet from the sidewalk.

History:

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Robert J. Brandon, Board MemberSECONDER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-24 Timothy J. Bajdas78 Fairelm LaneArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s driveway expansion will be approximately (2) two feet from the north property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (5) five feet.

Comments:The applicant stated that he has three cars and a motorcycle and needs a wider driveway. The driveway is in poor condition and he is planning to replace it.

A neighbor, Anthony Dicenzo, objected to granting the variance. He was concerned about snow storage on his property in the winter and running water when it rains. In addition, he has bedrooms on that side of the house, which would put running cars closer to the bedrooms. The applicant stated that the driveway will be pitched so that the water does not run off onto his property and he would blow the snow on to his property.



Mr. Kulyk suggested that a two foot variance be granted and that the driveway would start at the front of the garage and go to the street. This would keep it from being close to the bedrooms.


Motion made by Mr. Brandon and seconded by Mr. Speyer to grant the motion as requested, with the condition that the driveway start in front of the garage and run to the street, with the two foot setback.

History:

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Robert J. Brandon, Board MemberSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-25 Howard D. Jones20 Garnet DriveArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s proposed building addition will be (8.12) feet from the east property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (13) thirteen feet.

Comments:The applicant stated that a storage facility will be built, matching the siding of the house. The plastic temporary shed will be removed.


History:

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: James Speyer, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-26 R.E. Fund Sky Harbor Properties/Michael A. Schuler28 Tammy LaneArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s manufactured home will be (7) seven feet from the private street, whereas, the Zoning Law requires (25) twenty five feet minimum, AND

WHEREAS, the applicant’s manufactured home will be a minimum of (9) nine feet from the neighboring dwelling, whereas, the Zoning Law requires (20) twenty feet minimum.



Comments:Mr. Schuler stated that he is replacing a current structure.


History:

RESULT: GRANTED [4 TO 1]MOVER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Andrew A. Kulyk, Robert J. Brandon, Jane Wiercioch, John M. PtakNAYS: James Speyer

2009-27 Elizabeth Gospodarski/Lloyd Overfield76 Fairelm LaneArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s proposed driveway expansion will be (0) zero feet from the north property line whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (5) five feet.

Comments:The applicant stated that he needed the expansion to accommodate 5 cars. Mr. Kulyk suggested a 1 foot setback from the front of the garage. The applicant agreed.


Motion made by Mr. Brandon seconded by Mr. Speyer to grant the motion as requested, with the condition that the driveway will be 1 foot from the property line, from the front of the garage.

History:


2009-28 Derek Von Wrycza95 Santin DriveArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s proposed garage conversion to living space will cause the parking area (driveway) to be directly in front of the principal dwelling.

Comments:The applicant stated that the overhead door be removed. Mr. Kulyk suggested that three feet of landscaping buffer be placed between the driveway and the house. The applicant agreed. Mr. Ptak inquired if there will be room for parked cars without encroaching the sidewalk. The applicant said that there is enough room for cars.




Motion made by Mr. Speyer seconded by Mr. Ptak to grant the motion as requested, with the condition that a three foot landscape buffer be placed between the driveway and the house.

History:


2009-29 Cleveland Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. A/K/A Cleveland Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. of Cheektowaga, A/K/A Cleveland Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cheektowaga, New York/Edna Barenthaler/David Steinhilber261 Cleveland Drive/172 Aurora DriveArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant desires to create a parcel split which will cause the existing accessory parking area to be (0) zero feet from the proposed interior property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (10) ten feet of landscaping adjacent to the parking area.

Comments:The church was sold to another church and is not interested in the parsonage. The parsonage will be sold later. Mr. Steinhilber showed the board members on the survey where the split will be.


History:

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-30 Partner’s Bar & Grill/Otto Misso395 Shanley StreetUse Variance

Appeal:The applicant desires to remove his existing lawful non conforming building which houses a lawful non conforming exterior use/dining area (clam shack), and reconstruct/re-establish said building /use, whereas the Zoning Law does not permit the re-establishment of such uses once abandoned.



Comments:The applicant wants to replace the existing building with a new one the same size. Mr. Kulyk stated that this requires a Use Variance, which has strict conditions that must be met. He stated the conditions that are required and felt that they could not be met. It is a good project and the Board does not object to it, however the property should be rezoned. This might be easier and is the proper way to do it. The building is a commercial use with an apartment upstairs.

Mr. Kulyk suggested that he talk with the Planning Board Chairman, Mr. Sisti, for possible rezoning. The new master plan that is being developed will look into this type of situation for the future. It was suggested that instead of tearing down the building, try to remodel it. Talk to the Building Inspector. He might be able to shorten the time to get the project started. Two suggestions were reviewed: 1. remodel after checking with the Building Inspector, and 2. rezone the property to commercial.


History:

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/17/2009 7:00 PMMOVER: James Speyer, Board MemberSECONDER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-31 John F. Flowers, Sr.66 Gabrielle DriveArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s proposed driveway expansion will be (3) three feet from the south property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires (5) five feet minimum, AND

WHEREAS, the applicant’s driveway expansion will also be directly in front of the principal dwelling, whereas, the Zoning Law does not permit such locations.

Comments:Kimberly Flowers was present. She stated that there are three vehicles and there is a problem parking in the winter. The driveway will be extended four feet to the edge of the door to the garage. There will also be a concrete sidewalk along the side of the garage. Since they would like to start construction as soon as possible, the variance will be expedited by the Mr. Whiting.


History:




2009-32 Jeffrey & Amanda Scharf190 Zoerb AvenueArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s proposed fence will exceed (3.5) feet in height within the required exterior side yard of (18) feet, whereas, the Zoning Law does not permit fencing to exceed (3.5) feet in height within said required yard.

Comments:The applicant is requesting a six foot high fence, three feet from the Naussau Street side of the property line, which is four feet from the sidewalk. In other words, the fence will be seven feet from the sidewalk. The applicant showed the Board on the survey where the fence will be.


History:

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Robert J. Brandon, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

2009-33 Marcello Troncone40 Wellington RoadArea Variance

Appeal:The applicant’s enclosed porch will be (20) twenty feet from the front property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (25) twenty five feet.

Comments:The applicant stated the enclosed porch will not be heated and is for seasonal use.


History:




IV. Adjournment

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:30 PM

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Robert J. Brandon, Board MemberSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSDECISION

Page 1

Whereas, Our Lady of Czestochowa Church/Philip J. Silvestri has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-25C(2)(c), 260-25C(2)(b), 260-23C(2)

ARTICLE(S): III SECTION(S): 260-31C(2)(b)

ARTICLE(S): V SECTION(S): 260-43B(1)(c), 260-51D(2), 260-40B(2)

ARTICLE(S): VI SECTION(S): 260-59F(1)

of the zoning law for property located at

2160 Clinton Street

. 1. The applicant's proposed building addition will be a minimum of (2) feet from the east property line, whereas, law requires (20) feet minimum.2. The applicant's proposed building addition will be (8) feet from the west property line, whereas, law requires (19) feet or half the height of the building.3. The applicant's parcel split will cause the existing school building to be (8) feet from the side property line, whereas, law requires (15) feet minimum or half the height of the building.4. The applicant's parcel split will cause the existing church to be (0) feet from the side property line, whereas, law requires (20) feet minimum or half the height of the building, whichever is greater.5. The applicant's parcel split will cause the existing rectory building to be (0) feet to the side property line, whereas, law requires (30) feet.6. The applicant's proposed parking area will be (0) feet along the north property line, whereas, law requires (10) feet minimum.7. The applicant's proposed parking area will be (0) feet from the road right of way, whereas, law requires (25) feet minimum.8. The applicant's refuse enclosure will be (5) feet from the side property line, whereas, law does not permit such obstructions with the required side yard of (15) feet.9. The applicant's proposed (24) unit apartment building will provide (15) off street parking spaces, whereas, law requires (49) parking spaces.

Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/16/2008 after proper notice,

Whereas, this Board, after reviewing the application, and conducting a public hearing and after due deliberation and vote of the Board,

Be it resolved, by virtue of the power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Area Variance is hereby Denied.

In reaching a decision for a variance request such as the request brought by the applicant, the Board must balance the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and

2.1

Packet Pg. 12

Page 2

welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board should consider the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance.

This matter was initially brought before the Board in April 2008 and was tabled as there were issues that still needed to be resolved. This matter has been scheduled monthly since that time and tabled each month. There have been no further personal appearances by the applicant or any representatives of the applicant and the applicant has failed to supply the required information to enable the Board to conduct the required balancing test. Accordingly, this application for the requested area variances is DENIED. However, the Board grants unanimous consent for a request by applicant for reconsideration of the requested variances in the event such request is made.

Dated: June 3, 2009

RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Andrew A. Kulyk, Jane WierciochSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak

*Note – Construction cannot begin until a building permit is applied for and approved. Thisdecision will be automatically revoked unless a building permit is obtained within six (6) months of the date hereof and unless construction commences within one (1) year of the date hereof.

2.1

Packet Pg. 13

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Upstate Niagara Cooperative/Charles Basil/Basil Ford/Joseph Basil has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): VI SECTION(S): 60-51D(2)

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-33(A)(2)(c)


1717 Walden Avenue

. 1) The applicant desires (zero) feet along the south line, whereas, law requires (10) feet of landscaping along interior lot lines.2) The applicant's new car dealership is separate, on a different parcel, down the road from the used car sales proposed location, whereas, law permits used car sales only as accessory to new car sales.



Be it resolved, by virtue of the power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Area Variance is hereby Denied.

In reaching a decision for an area variance request, the Board must balance the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board should consider the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance.

In reaching a decision for a use variance there must be a showing that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. The applicant must show there is no reasonable return from the permitted use, the alleged hardship relating to the property is unique, the requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the alleged hardship is not self-created.

This matter was initially brought before the Board in September 2008 and was tabled as there

2.2

Packet Pg. 14

Page 2

were issues that still needed to be resolved. This matter has been scheduled monthly since that time and tabled each month. There have been no further personal appearances by the applicant or any representatives of the applicant and the applicant has failed to supply the required information to enable the Board to conduct the required balancing test for an area variance or to establish that there are sufficient factors that justify the granting of the requested use variance. It was stated by the Deputy Town Attorney at the May 20, 2009 Board meeting that the applicant called the Town Attorney’s Office and stated that applicant no longer wishes to pursue this application for an area and use variance. Accordingly, this application for the requested area and use variances is DENIED. However, the Board grants unanimous consent for a request by applicant for reconsideration of the requested variances in the event such request is made.

Dated: June 3, 2009

RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Andrew A. Kulyk, ChairmanSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


2.2

Packet Pg. 15

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Timothy Caya has made application for a(n) Temporary Permit,under

ARTICLE(S): III SECTION(S): 260-31A


2739 Union Road

. The applicant desires to establish a motor service use on a temporary basis, whereas, the Zoning Law does not permit motor service uses within a C-Retail Business Zoning District.



Be it resolved, by virtue of the power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Temporary Permit is hereby Tabled.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/17/2009 7:00 PMMOVER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


2.3

Packet Pg. 16

2.3.a

Packet P

g. 17

Attachment: 2739 Union Road (2009-8 : 2739 Union Road)

2.3.a

Packet P

g. 18


2.3.a

Packet P

g. 19


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Pastor Douglas R. Sexton/Hedstrom Memorial Baptist Church has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): VI SECTION(S): 260-50F(2)(a)


55 Losson Road

. The applicant desires to establish a second freestanding sign, whereas, the Zoning Law permits one freestanding sign per building lot/parcel.



Be it resolved, by virtue of the power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Area Variance is hereby Granted.

In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance.

The applicant stated at the public hearing that the sign will be replacing a temporary banner and is to advertise a Bible based addiction program offered to the community. It was noted that there is a plaza next to applicant’s church on the side where this sign will be located. No one appeared at the public hearing in opposition to this application. The Board finds that the granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and that there has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant. Additionally, granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.

The new signage will be installed per the plans and specifications provided by the applicant.

3.1

Packet Pg. 20

Page 2

Dated: June 3, 2009



3.1

Packet Pg. 21

3.1.a

Packet P

g. 22

Attachment: 55 Losson Rd (2009-21 : 55 Losson Road)

3.1.a

Packet P

g. 23


3.1.a

Packet P

g. 24


3.1.a

Packet Pg. 25

Att

ach

men

t: 5

5 L

oss

on

Rd

(20

09-2

1 :

55 L

oss

on

Ro

ad)

SITE PLAN OR ZONING REFERRAL TO COUNTY OF ERIE, NYAND REPLY TO MUNICIPALITY

DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

Case No.:Note: Please complete in triplicate. Send original and one copy (with attachments) to

Erie County Division of Planning, Room 1053, 95 Franklin Street, Buffalo, N.Y. 14202.Retain last copy for your files. Received:

The proposed action described herein is referred in accordance with the provisions of the General Municipal Law, which provides that if no reply is received in 30 days after receipt of full information including a SEQR EAF if applicable, the municipal agency may take final action

without considering such reply. If, however, reply is received at any time prior to municipal Action, such reply must be considered.

Description of Proposed Action

1. Name of Municipality: Town of Cheektowaga

2. Hearing Schedule: Date 5/20/2009 Time 7:00 P LocationCheektowaga Town Hall, 3301 Broadway

3. Action is before: Legislative Body Board of Appeals Planning Board

4. Action consists of: New Ordinance Rezone/Map Change Ordinance Amendment

Site Plan Variance Special Use Permit Other

5. Location of Property: Entire Municipality Specific as follows 55 Losson Road

6. Referral required asSite is within 500’of:

State or CountyProperty/Institution

Municipal Boundary Farm Operation located in an Agricultural District

Expressway County Road State Highway Proposed State or County Road, Property, Building/Institution, Drainageway

7. Proposed change or use: (be specific)The applicant desires to establish a second freestanding sign, whereas, the Zoning Law permits one freestanding sign per building lot/parcel.

8. Other remarks: (ID#, SBL#, etc.)

9. Submitted by: Cynthia A Dauscher 5/11/09

3301 Broadway, Cheektowaga, New York 14227

Reply to Municipality by Erie County Division of Planning

Receipt of the above-described proposed action is acknowledged on ________________. The Division herewith submits its review and reply under the provisions of applicable state and local law, based on the information submitted with this referral.

1. The proposed action is not subject to review under the law.

2. Form ZR-3, Comment on Proposed Action is attached hereto.

3. The proposed action is subject to review; the Division makes the recommendation shown on Form ZR-4, Recommendation on Proposed Action, which is attached hereto.

4. No recommendation; proposed action has been reviewed and determined to be of local concern

By the Division of Planning: Date:

3.1.b

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: 5

5 L

oss

on

Rd

- 2

39M

Ref

erra

l (2

009-

21 :

55

Lo

sso

n R

oad

)

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Ernest J. Wisniewski has made application for a(n) Area Variance,under

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-28A(5)


159 David Avenue

. The applicant’s covered front porch will be (9.58) feet from the front property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (18) eighteen feet.



Be it resolved, by virtue of the power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Area Variance is hereby Tabled.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/17/2009 7:00 PMMOVER: James Speyer, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


3.2

Packet Pg. 27

3.2.a

Packet P

g. 28

Attachment: 159 david ave-001 (2009-22 : 159 David Avenue)

3.2.a

Packet P

g. 29


3.2.a

Packet P

g. 30


3.2.a

Packet P

g. 31


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Michael Rokitka/Melissa Reyome has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): VI SECTION(S): 260-59F(1)(b)

of the zoning law for property located:

206 Oehman Boulevard

. The applicant’s proposed fence will exceed (3.5) feet in height, whereas, the Zoning Law limits the maximum height to (3.5) feet within the required front yard of (25) twenty five feet.




The proposed fence will be no higher than 4.5 feet at its highest point and be set back at least 3 feet from the easterly property line which is approximately 13 feet from the sidewalk.

In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance.

The applicants stated at the public hearing that they spoke with their neighbors on both sides and neither neighbor had any objections to this fence being 4.5 feet in height. The applicants also stated that their house is built on the back of the lot so they do not have a back yard. They need to fence the yard to keep their dogs in the yard and the fence, as proposed in applicant’s plans, will be aesthetically pleasing. No one appeared at the public hearing in opposition to this application. The Board finds that granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There has been an adequate showing that strict

3.3

Packet Pg. 32

Page 2

compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.

Dated: June 3, 2009

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Robert J. Brandon, Board MemberSECONDER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


3.3

Packet Pg. 33

3.3.a

Packet P

g. 34

Attachment: 206 Oehman Blvd (2009-23 : 206 Oehman Boulevard)

3.3.a

Packet P

g. 35


3.3.a

Packet P

g. 36


3.3.a

Packet P

g. 37


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Timothy J. Bajdas has made application for a(n) Area Variance,under

ARTICLE(S): V SECTION(S): 260-43B(1)(a)


78 Fairelm Lane

. The applicant’s driveway expansion will be approximately (2) two feet from the north property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (5) five feet.




This area variance is granted on the condition that the driveway does not extend beyond the front of the garage, will be no closer than two (2) feet from the northerly property line and will extend to the sidewalk. In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The applicant stated at the public hearing that it is difficult to find parking for all the vehicles in the household and parking is even more difficult during the winter parking ban. The household has three cars and a motorcycle and applicant’s son will be getting a car soon. They will frequently have to move cars in the driveway because the limited width of the driveway requires cars to be parked behind each other, thus causing vehicles to be blocked. A neighbor sent a letter in to the Board and also appeared at the hearing in opposition to this application. This neighbor was concerned about rain accumulation as there would be less grass to absorb it and about snow accumulation. This neighbor also felt that if the driveway extended as far back as the applicant intended it would be unsightly. This neighbor was satisfied when the applicant agreed to reduce the driveway expansion so that the driveway would not extend beyond the front of the garage. The Board noted that the hardship

3.4

Packet Pg. 38

Page 2

suffered by applicant is one suffered by many other Town residents and that similar requests for such a variance have been granted in the past. With the reduction in the driveway expansion described above, the concerns of the neighbor have been addressed and granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor be substantial. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.

Dated: June 18, 2009



3.4

Packet Pg. 39

3.4.a

Packet P

g. 40

Attachment: 78 fairelm ln (2009-24 : 78 Fairelm Lane)

3.4.a

Packet P

g. 41


3.4.a

Packet P

g. 42


3.4.a

Packet P

g. 43


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Howard D. Jones has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-24D(2)(b)


20 Garnet Drive

. The applicant’s proposed building addition will be (8.12) feet from the east property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (13) thirteen feet.




In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The testimony offered at the hearing, the personal inspection conducted by Zoning Board of Appeals members and the application itself indicate the shed is of moderate height, profile and conforms well in appearance to the surrounding area and to the applicant’s house. No one appeared in opposition. The Board noted that the hardship suffered by applicant is one suffered by many other Town residents and that similar requests for such a variance have been granted in the past. Thus, granting this application will not create an unusual or undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor is this requested area variance substantial. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.


3.5

Packet Pg. 44

Page 2



3.5

Packet Pg. 45

3.5.a

Packet P

g. 46

Attachment: 20 garnet dr (2009-25 : 20 Garnet Drive)

3.5.a

Packet P

g. 47


3.5.a

Packet P

g. 48


3.5.a

Packet P

g. 49


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, R.E. Fund Sky Harbor Properties/Michael A. Schuler has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-27B(6)(c)[2]

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-27B(6)(d)


28 Tammy Lane

. The applicant’s manufactured home will be (7) seven feet from the private street, whereas, the Zoning Law requires (25) twenty five feet minimum, AND





In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The applicant stated at the public hearing that this variance is needed to replace an old outdated manufactured home with a new manufactured home that will enhance the site and the surrounding community. No one appeared at the public hearing in opposition to this application. The Board finds that the granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and instead will improve it. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.

3.6

Packet Pg. 50

Page 2

Dated: June 3, 2009

RESULT: GRANTED [4 TO 1]MOVER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Andrew A. Kulyk, Robert J. Brandon, Jane Wiercioch, John M. PtakNAYS: James Speyer


3.6

Packet Pg. 51

3.6.a

Packet P

g. 52

Attachment: 28 tammy ln (2009-26 : 28 Tammy Lane)

3.6.a

Packet P

g. 53


3.6.a

Packet P

g. 54


3.6.a

Packet Pg. 55

Attach

men

t: 28 tamm

y ln (2009-26 : 28 T

amm

y Lan

e)













5. Location of Property: Entire Municipality Specific as follows 28 Tammy Lane





7. Proposed change or use: (be specific)

The applicant’s manufactured home will be (7) seven feet from the private street, whereas, the Zoning Law requires (25) twenty five feet minimum, AND











3.6.b

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: 2

8 T

amm

y L

n -

239

M R

efer

ral

(200

9-26

: 2

8 T

amm

y L

ane)

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Elizabeth Gospodarski/Lloyd Overfield has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under



76 Fairelm Lane

. The applicant’s proposed driveway expansion will be (0) zero feet from the north property line whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (5) five feet.




This area variance is granted on the condition that the driveway will be no closer than one (2) foot from the northerly property line. In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The applicant stated at the public hearing that it is difficult to find parking for all the vehicles in the household and parking is even more difficult during the winter parking ban. The household has three cars and two motorcycles. They will frequently have to move cars in the driveway because the limited width of the driveway requires cars to be parked behind each other, thus causing vehicles to be blocked. The adjacent neighbor, Timothy Bajdas, stated he had no objection to this proposed driveway expansion. There was no other public comment. The Board noted that the hardship suffered by applicant is one suffered by many other Town residents and that similar requests for such a variance have been granted in the past. Granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor be substantial. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment

3.7

Packet Pg. 57

Page 2

to adjoining property owners.




3.7

Packet Pg. 58

3.7.a

Packet P

g. 59

Attachment: Voided Attachment (2009-27 : 76 Fairelm Lane)

3.7.a

Packet P

g. 60


3.7.a

Packet P

g. 61


3.7.a

Packet P

g. 62


3.7.b

Packet P

g. 63


3.7.b

Packet P

g. 64


3.7.b

Packet P

g. 65


3.7.b

Packet P

g. 66


3.7.b

Packet Pg. 67

Att

ach

men

t: 7

6 fa

irel

m ln

(20

09-2

7 :

76 F

aire

lm L

ane)

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Derek Von Wrycza has made application for a(n) Area Variance,under

ARTICLE(S): V SECTION(S): 260-43B(1)(b)


95 Santin Drive

. The applicant’s proposed garage conversion to living space will cause the parking area (driveway) to be directly in front of the principal dwelling.




This area variance is granted on the condition that applicant installs and maintains a landscaped area of at least three (3) feet between the end of the driveway and the converted garage.

In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. There was no public comment at the hearing. The Board noted that the hardship suffered by applicant is one suffered by many other Town residents and that similar requests for such a variance have been granted in the past. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.


3.8

Packet Pg. 68

Page 2



3.8

Packet Pg. 69

3.8.a

Packet P

g. 70

Attachment: 95 santin dr (2009-28 : 95 Santin Drive)

3.8.a

Packet P

g. 71


3.8.a

Packet P

g. 72


3.8.a

Packet P

g. 73


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Cleveland Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. A/K/A Cleveland Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. of Cheektowaga, A/K/A Cleveland Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cheektowaga, New York/Edna Barenthaler/David Steinhilber has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): VI SECTION(S): 260-51D(2)


261 Cleveland Drive/172 Aurora Drive

. The applicant desires to create a parcel split which will cause the existing accessory parking area to be (0) zero feet from the proposed interior property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (10) ten feet of landscaping adjacent to the parking area.




In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The applicant stated at the public hearing that the church was sold to another church that did not want to purchase the parsonage. The Board noted that this parcel split will leave the infra-structure of the premises in place and that the remaining parsonage will have sufficient side lots. If this request was not granted, applicant would have to remove the parking area at great expense. There was no public comment at the hearing. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical and economic difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment or change to adjoining property owners.


3.9

Packet Pg. 74

Page 2

RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberSECONDER: James Speyer, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


3.9

Packet Pg. 75

3.9.a

Packet P

g. 76

Attachment: 261 Cleveland Dr (2009-29 : 261 Cleveland Drive/172 Aurora Drive)

3.9.a

Packet P

g. 77


3.9.a

Packet P

g. 78


3.9.a

Packet P

g. 79


3.9.a

Packet P

g. 80


3.9.a

Packet P

g. 81


3.9.a

Packet P

g. 82


3.9.a

Packet Pg. 83

Att

ach

men

t: 2

61 C

leve

lan

d D

r (

2009

-29

: 26

1 C

leve

lan

d D

rive

/172

Au

rora

Dri

ve)













5. Location of Property: Entire Municipality Specific as follows 261 Cleveland Drive, including

172 Aurora Drive





7. Proposed change or use: (be specific)

The applicant desires to create a parcel split which will cause the existing accessory parking area to be (0) zero feet from the proposed interior property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (10) ten feet of landscaping adjacent to the parking area.










3.9.b

Packet Pg. 84

Att

ach

men

t: 2

61 C

leve

lan

d D

r 17

2 A

uro

ra D

rive

(20

09-2

9 :

261

Cle

vela

nd

Dri

ve/1

72 A

uro

ra D

rive

)

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Partner’s Bar & Grill/Otto Misso has made application for a(n) Use Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): VII SECTION(S): 260-65


395 Shanley Street

. The applicant desires to remove his existing lawful non conforming building which houses a lawful non conforming exterior use/dining area (clam shack), and reconstruct/re-establish said building /use, whereas the Zoning Law does not permit the re-establishment of such uses once abandoned.



Be it resolved, by virtue of the power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Use Variance is hereby Tabled.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/17/2009 7:00 PMMOVER: James Speyer, Board MemberSECONDER: John M. Ptak, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


3.10

Packet Pg. 85

3.10.a

Packet P

g. 86

Attachment: 395 shanley st (2009-30 : 395 Shanley Street)

3.10.a

Packet P

g. 87


3.10.a

Packet P

g. 88


3.10.a

Packet P

g. 89


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, John F. Flowers, Sr. has made application for a(n) Area Variance,under


ARTICLE(S): V SECTION(S): 260-43B(1)(b)


66 Gabrielle Drive

. The applicant’s proposed driveway expansion will be (3) three feet from the south property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires (5) five feet minimum, AND

WHEREAS, the applicant’s driveway expansion will also be directly in front of the principal dwelling, whereas, the Zoning Law does not permit such locations.




In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The applicant stated at the public hearing that it is difficult to find parking for all the vehicles in the household and parking is even more difficult during the winter parking ban. They will frequently have to move cars in the driveway because the limited width of the driveway requires cars to be parked behind each other, thus causing vehicles to be blocked. Applicant also mentioned that there are many cars parked on the street in the area of the premise. No one appeared at the public hearing in opposition to this application. The Board noted that the hardship suffered by applicant is one suffered by many other Town residents and that similar requests for such a variance have been granted in the past. Thus, granting this

3.11

Packet Pg. 90

Page 2

application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor is this requested area variance substantial. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.

Dated: June 3, 2009



3.11

Packet Pg. 91

3.11.a

Packet P

g. 92

Attachment: 66 gabrielle dr (2009-31 : 66 Gabrielle Drive)

3.11.a

Packet P

g. 93


3.11.a

Packet P

g. 94


3.11.a

Packet P

g. 95


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Jeffrey & Amanda Scharf has made application for a(n) Area Variance, under

ARTICLE(S): VI SECTION(S): 260-59F(1)(b)

of the zoning law for property located at:

190 Zoerb Avenue

. The applicant’s proposed fence will exceed (3.5) feet in height within the required exterior side yard of (18) feet, whereas, the Zoning Law does not permit fencing to exceed (3.5) feet in height within said required yard.




This area variance is granted on the condition that the proposed fence will be set back at least three (3) feet from property line on the Nassau side of the premises which is also seven (7) feet from the sidewalk on that side.

In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will beproduced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance.

No one appeared at the public hearing in opposition to this application. The Board finds that granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.

3.12

Packet Pg. 96

Page 2


RESULT: GRANTED [UNANIMOUS]MOVER: Robert J. Brandon, Board MemberSECONDER: Jane Wiercioch, Board MemberAYES: Kulyk, Brandon, Wiercioch, Speyer, Ptak


3.12

Packet Pg. 97

3.12.a

Packet P

g. 98

Attachment: 190 zoerb ave (2009-32 : 190 Zoerb Avenue)

3.12.a

Packet P

g. 99


3.12.a

Packet P

g. 100


3.12.a

Packet P

g. 101


3.12.a

Packet P

g. 102


TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA


Page 1

Whereas, Marcello Troncone has made application for a(n) Area Variance,under

ARTICLE(S): II SECTION(S): 260-23C(1)

of the zoning law for property located at:

40 Wellington Road

. The applicant’s enclosed porch will be (20) twenty feet from the front property line, whereas, the Zoning Law requires a minimum of (25) twenty five feet.




In reaching this decision the Board balanced the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood community. In conducting this balancing test the Board considered the following five factors: (a) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (c) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the area variance. The Board finds that the proposed improvement will offer an enhancement to the subject premises and will also blend in with the surrounding area. No one appeared at the public hearing in opposition to this application. Granting this application will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor is this requested area variance substantial. There has been an adequate showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties to the applicant and that granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to adjoining property owners.


3.13

Packet Pg. 103

Page 2



3.13

Packet Pg. 104

3.13.a

Packet P

g. 105

Attachment: 40 wellington rd (2009-33 : 40 Wellington Road)

3.13.a

Packet P

g. 106


3.13.a

Packet P

g. 107


3.13.a

Packet P

g. 108


Documents

Wednesday, May, 20, 2009 7:00 PM Council Office