Town of Hamburg Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting November 1, Minutes

Transcription

1 Town of Hamburg Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting November 1, 2016 Minutes The Town of Hamburg Board of Zoning Appeals met for a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. in Room 7B of Hamburg Town Hall, 6100 South Park Avenue. Those attending included Chairman Brad Rybczynski, Vice-Chairman Shawn Connelly, Commissioner Louis M. Chiacchia, Commissioner Bob Ginnetti, Commissioner Ric Dimpfl and Commissioner Laura Hahn. Excused: Commissioner Falkiewicz Others in attendance included Attorney Mark Walling, Board of Zoning Appeals Attorney, and Sarah desjardins, Town Planner. Vice-Chairman Connolly asked for a moment of silence to honor our men and women in the military. Commissioner Hahn read the Notice of Public Hearing. Tabled Application # 5596 Kevin Tomasik Requesting a use variance to allow a private horse stable at 2215 Lakeview Road Kevin Tomasik, applicant, stated that he called the New York Planning Federation to get a better idea of how to address the first use variance criterion regarding realizing a reasonable return on his property. He stated that he was advised to contact a realtor, which he did, and he obtained two (2) letters from realtors as follows: 1. Letter from Jennifer Hobson from Hunt Real Estate: In my professional opinion, if the property owner at 2215 Lakeview Road put his house on the market, his 4.95-acre property with a 1,100 sq.ft. pole barn, horse stall and pasture would yield a lower sale price without the ability to have a horse on the property. Given the acreage of the property, the creek running through it and the barn with the horse stall, it resembles property that would be marketed as a horse-friendly property. From a financial standpoint and a real estate market, this property would yield a higher return if it had a variance allowing them to have a horse on the property. 2. Letter from Robert Ganey from Century 21: In my professional opinion, if the property owner at 2215 Lakeview Road put his house on the market, his 4.95-acre property with a 1,100 sq.ft. pole barn, horse stall and pasture would yield a lower sale price without the ability to have a horse on the property. Given the acreage of the property, the creek running through it and the barn with the horse stall, it resembles property that would be marketed as a horse-friendly property. From a financial standpoint and a real estate market, this property would yield a higher return if it had a variance allowing them to have a horse on the property. Chairman Rybczynski stated that Mr. Tomasik not being able to have a horse does not make his property valueless in the capacity that it serves. He further stated that Mr. Tomasik would have to argue that without the variance, his property would be useless as it is. In response to a question from Mr. Connolly, Mr. Tomasik stated that he purchased his property 14 years ago. He further stated that the property was once used to graze cattle, and he does not think there is any way someone would think that a horse would not be allowed on the property. 1

2 Mr. Tomasik stated that there are not many parcels in this area that are large enough to allow horses, even if he was considering selling his existing property and moving, which he is not. Mr. Connolly made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Chiacchia, to deny Application # Chairman Rybczynski stated that the motion and second do not come without great reservation from each member because they would love to find a way to be able to approve the application, but it is difficult to find a road to that end. As the vote on the motion was five (5) ayes and one (1) nay (Mr. Dimpfl), the motion passed. DENIED. Tabled Application # 5597 Walter Klubek Requesting a use variance to allow an in-law apartment in a proposed home to be constructed on vacant land adjacent to 6778 Boston State Road Simone Klubek, applicant, stated that when they purchased this property, they were not made aware of the zoning. She further stated that the hardship came (the realization that they had to care for their ailing father) after they purchased the property. Mrs. Klubek stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a use variance in 2014 where the applicant stated that he could not use the property for its permitted use and get a reasonable return on the property because of lack of property upkeep. She noted that the property she and her husband purchased on Boston State Road has been used to store two (2) tractor trailer trucks, dozens of tires, garbage and some dilapidated buildings. She stated that before using this property as a farm, which is the only other thing they could use the land for other than a single-family home, they would have to clean the property up, and there would be a considerable amount of work involved. She noted that her family is not knowledgeable enough, nor does it have the expertise, to farm the land. Ms. Klubek stated that she and her husband could build two (2) separate homes on this property, but that would negate the whole purpose of having her father close to them so they can care for him and involve him in family activities. Mrs. Klubek stated that none of the other permitted uses in the R-A District would be feasible or appropriate given her and her husband s financial and educational status. Mrs. Klubek stated that their only other option would be to search for R-2 property, which would allow the in-law apartment, and sell the Boston State Road property. She stated that they would have to sell the Boston State Road property before purchasing another property, and she believes it would take a considerable amount of time to sell the property, which would mean they would have to pay the taxes on it while it is on the market. Mr. Ginnetti made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Chiacchia, to approve Application # Mr. Ginnetti reviewed the use variance criteria as follows: 1. Cannot realize a reasonable return substantial as shown my competent financial evidence Applicant has satisfied this criteria. 2

3 2. Alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to substantial portion of district or neighborhood Applicant has satisfied this criteria. 3. Requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Applicant has satisfied this criteria. 4. Alleged hardship has not been self-created Applicant has satisfied this criteria. Application # 5598 South Sowles Corporation Requesting an area variance for proposed wall signage at 3549 Southwestern Boulevard Rick Johnson from X-Press Signs, representing the applicant, stated that he spoke with several nearby residents about the proposed signage. Mr. Johnson stated that West Herr proposes to put an LED sign on the wall facing Sowles Road and Southwestern Boulevard over an area that already has a large painted sign. He stated that the existing painted wall sign is larger than what is proposed and would be painted over before the new LED sign is installed. Mr. Johnson stated that the LED wall signage would have self-dimming capabilities. Mr. Dimpfl mad a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Ginnetti, to approve Application # Mr. Dimpfl reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: properties No. 3. Whether the request is substantial This could be argued either way. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created This could be argued either way, but the balancing test favors approval. Application # 5599 Colleen Cirrincioni Requesting an area variance for a proposed attached garage at 3125 South Creek Road Attorney Nick DiMarco from Attea & Attea, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance for a two-car attached garage. He stated that given the layout of the property and the position of the house, there is no other place to place the garage. He stated that the adjacent vacant property to the east is owned by Niagara Mohawk and is used for power lines, and his client has secured a lease from Niagara Mohawk granting her surface rights across a 50-foot portion of the property. Attorney DiMarco stated that the house is already within the required 30-foot side yard setback. Attorney DiMarco stated that this area is very rural, and therefore there would be no change to the character of the neighborhood. He further stated that the applicant owns the property to the west of 3125 South Creek Road. Attorney DiMarco stated that it is a matter of perspective whether this request would be considered substantial or the hardship self-created. 3

4 Attorney DiMarco stated that there would not be any adverse physical or environmental effects with the granting of this variance. Mr. Connolly made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Dimpfl, to approve Application # Mr. Connolly reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: properties No. 3. Whether the request is substantial It could be argued that it is substantial. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created This could be argued either way, but the balancing test favors approval. Application # 5600 Jacqueline Zizzi Requesting an area variance for a proposed front porch at 5097 Thurston Jacqueline Zizzi, applicant, stated that she currently has a small porch on her home, and she would like to construct a larger covered porch. Mrs. desjardins stated that the applicant s home is considered existing nonconforming because it is too close to the front property line. Chairman Rybczynski confirmed that the new porch would be three (3) feet closer to the front property line than the existing porch is now. Mr. Dimpfl made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Chiacchia, to approve Application # Mr. Dimpfl reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: properties No. 3. Whether the request is substantial No. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created No. Application # 5601 David Kersten Requesting two (2) area variances for a proposed detached garage at 4394 Robin Lane David Kersten, applicant, stated that he would like to build a carport off of the rear of his existing garage in order to store his boat. He stated that the poles for the carport would be six (6) inches from his rear property line. 4

5 Mrs. desjardins stated that she received an from the resident behind Mr. Kersten s property indicating that he does not oppose the variance as long as the applicant installs a sixfoot high stockade fence the length of the property line they share. Mr. Ginnetti made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Dimpfl, to approve Application # Mr. Ginnetti reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: properties No because many lots in this area are fenced. 3. Whether the request is substantial No. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created It is self-created. Chairman Rybczynski made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Ginnetti, to reconsider Mr. Ginnetti s motion. All members voted in favor of the motion to reconsider. Chairman Rybczynski made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Dimpfl, to amend Mr. Ginnetti s motion to add a condition that a six-foot high stockade fence must be installed along the length of the applicant s rear property line. All members voted in favor of the motion to amend the motion. Chairman Rybczynski made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Chiacchia, to approve Application # 5601 as amended. All members voted in favor. APPROVED. Application # 5602 Buck Larusch Requesting an area variance to allow the property at 1699 Lakeview Road to be subdivided for one (1) additional home Mrs. desjardins stated that the applicant has requested approval from the Planning Board to subdivide his property into two (2) parcels so that his daughter can build a home. She stated that Mr. Larusch has a 25-foot wide driveway he would like to share with his daughter, and 60 feet of frontage along a public road is required for two (2) building lots. Mrs. desjardins stated that the Planning Board has no problems with this subdivision as long as a legal easement is drawn up between the two (2) parties for the use, maintenance, etc. of the shared driveway. Mrs. desjardins stated that she received two (2) s from Jake Schneider, owner of the vacant property on either side of Mr. Larusch s driveway, stating that he does not want to sell Mr. Larusch property that would help Mr. Larusch achieve the required 60 feet of street frontage, but he does not oppose the granting of the variance. Mr. Connolly made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Dimpfl, to approve Application # 5602 with the following condition: 5

6 The applicant and the owner of the second home to be constructed on the property (applicant s daughter) must enter into a binding legal agreement to share the existing 25- foot wide driveway Mr. Connolly reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: 1. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant No because the applicant has attempted to purchase additional property from the adjoining property owner. properties No because of the size of the property and the setting in which it is in. 3. Whether the request is substantial On paper it appears substantial, but it is a unique flag-shaped lot. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created It is self-created, but the balancing test favors approved. All members voted in favor of the motion. APPROVED. Mr. Dimpfl made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Connolly, to approve the minutes of October 4, All members voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Dimpfl made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Ginnetti, to adjourn the meeting. All members voted in favor of the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. DATE: December 1, 2016 Respectfully submitted, L. Michael Chiacchia, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 6