At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Aurora, New York, held at the Village Hall, East Aurora, New York on the 21 st day of May, 2015 PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman Michael Campanella, Vice Chairman Michael Croft Bruce Mitchell, Alternate ABSENT: John Pagliaccio Mary (Molly) Flynn ALSO PRESENT: William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary Also Present: Patrick Dwyer, 516 Prospect Ave Tom Riddock, 23 N Willow Mary Reid, 312 Center Kevin Biggs, 780 Warren Dr Don & Michele Vogel, Blakeley Rd Paige Heutter, 115 Hamlin Dana Learn, 23 N Willow Stephen Smith, 312 Center Nan Murphy, 165 Parkdale Jodi DeRiszner, 516 North Street 285-43A which prohibits the fence height not to exceed 3.5 to the side or front of the building. Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:03 PM and introduced the (3) members of the Mike Croft made a motion to approve the minutes of April 23, 2015, seconded by Mike Campanella, with a unanimous vote to follow. 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated April 13, 2015 stating that relief is needed from Village Code Section 285-43A requesting fence height to exceed 3.5. 2. The letter of appeal and agent letter from Jodi DeRiszner was read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer and made a part of the record. IT APPEARING that this matter was not referred to the Erie County Division of Planning with Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications received on the matter. Code Enforcement Officer Bill Kramer replied that no other communications had been received.
Chairman, Spooner asked Patrick Dwyer, as agent for Jodi DeRiszner, to present their case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Dwyer offered the following points on behalf of the variance request: 8 hedges were recently removed Here are currently 6 mailboxes just over their eastern property line These mailboxes belong to residence of Mary Jane s Lane The hedges provided the privacy Garbage pickup is on a different day than Jodi s They want a fence so the garbage from Mary Jane s residence doesn t fly over to their property They are cleaning garbage up constantly This is like a corner lot because of the driveway for Mary Jane s Lane The line of sight after fence installation will not be an issue and will allow full vision at the stop sign at Mary Jane s lane Mary Jane driveway is about 5 from eastern property line The fence will be 6 replacing the old 8 hedges and will be more complimentary The fence setback/start/placement be in line with the house s setback which is about 15 from sidewalk Bruce Mitchell expressed concern with fence because of the people walking on the sidewalk on North St. He mentioned a person could see through the hedges. The fence will be placed far enough back that it won t be an issue. There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Spooner closed the meeting at 6:16 PM for deliberations and findings. findings for Jodi DeRiszner at 516 North Street: 1. 516 North St is in an R District and predates the current codes. 2. The resident was constructed in 1956 and is located on the northwest corner of North Street and Mary Jane Lane, which is a private unpaved driveway shared by 6 single family residences. 3. There was previously a six foot high line of shrubs and an existing fence along the east property line to provide privacy for the resident from the Mary Jane Lane driveway traffic. 4. The requested variance would involve a six feet fence starting approximately 13.66 off the North St right of way and extend approximately 42 to the existing 6 fence. The 6 fence would also extend across the front yard from the east property line approximately 16. 5. The resident would like the 6 fence for protection from the noise, dust, trash created by the residents use of this driveway. 2
6. The proposed variance is the minimum variance which will prevent the practical difficulty herein without violating the spirit and intent of the zoning code. Garage will not change the character of the neighborhood. 7. This not a self created hardship and will not change the character of the neighborhood. 8. There were 30 notices sent out to the required neighbors and there were no response or appearances. 9. This is a Type II action under SEQR. Michael Campanella made a motion to accept the proposed findings and to GRANT a variance. The motion was seconded by Michael Croft, with a unanimous vote to follow. Dana Learn, 23 North Willow Street 285-17D(4) which states No accessory building shall be nearer than 10 feet to any dwelling, nor be within five feet of any side or rear lot line. Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:18 PM and introduced the (3) members of the 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated April 23, 2015 stating that relief is needed from Village Code Section 285-17D(4) requesting side yard setbacks for accessory structures. 2. The letter of appeal dated April 16, 2015 from Dana Learn was read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer and made a part of the record. IT APPEARING that this matter was not referred to the Erie County Division of Planning with Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications received on the matter. Code Enforcement Officer Bill Kramer replied that no other communications had been received but noted the variance measurement was incorrect on the denial letter and should be 2.87 instead of 4.55. Chairman, Spooner asked Tom Riddock, as agent for Dana Learn, to present their case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Riddock offered the following points on behalf of the variance request: 3
4 The old garage has been removed This building will be in the same spot as old but longer If the setbacks were to comply, the garage would be in the middle of the yard Functionality would be an issue with the blacktop driveway They like the back yard for kids, dogs and a garden There would be trouble maneuvering in the garage There would be an added expense to add to the driveway This lot is smaller than normal with 50 width The eaves will be clear of the property line The old garage sat just over 2 off property line There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Spooner closed the meeting at 6:24 PM for deliberations and findings. findings for Dana Learn at 23 North Willow Street: 1. 23 North Willow St is in an R District. 2. The resident was constructed in 1930. 3. The Lot at 23 North Willow is a legal non-conforming lot due to width of 50 and area of 8,000 square feet. The current requirement is 70 width and area of 10,500 square feet. 4. The new construction would be a 24 X 30 garage replacing a 17 X 18 garage that is 2.13 off the property line. 5. The new garage will be located in the same location with regard to the south and east property lines. 6. There is an existing blacktop driveway from the street to the existing garage. 7. The proposed garage would be located in the only place suitable for its intended use without incurring considerable costs and usefulness of the rear yard. 8. There were 39 notices sent out to the required neighbors and there were no responses or appearances. 9. The requested variance will not change the character of the neighborhood. 10. The proposed variance is the minimum variance which will prevent the practical difficulty here in without violating the spirit and intent of the zoning code. 11. The hardship is not self-created. 12. This is a Type II Action under SEQR. Michael Campanella made a motion to accept the proposed findings and to GRANT a variance. The motion was seconded by Michael Croft, with a unanimous vote to follow.
Donald & Michele Vogel, 61 Hamburg Street Sections 209-11A - non conforming sign, Section 209-7B(2)(a)- Freestanding signs, Section 209-7C(3)- internally illuminated sign Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:30 PM and introduced the (3) members of the 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated April 27, 2015 stating that relief is needed from Village Code Section 209-11A, 209-7B(2)(a) and 209-7C(3) requesting internally lighted signs. 2. The letter of appeal from Donald & Michele Vogel was read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer and made a part of the record. IT APPEARING that this matter was not referred to the Erie County Division of Planning with Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications received on the matter. Code Enforcement Officer Bill Kramer replied that no other communications had been received. He noted this address is also known as 48 Hamburg. 48 Hamburg St is the entrance to the building and 61 Hamburg faces Hamburg Street. Chairman, Spooner asked Don & Michele Vogel to present their case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. & Mrs. Vogel offered the following points on behalf of the variance request: The freestanding sign will be the same intensity of the past sign This sign will replace a sign that was installed in 1989 which is pre-code It is in the same spot and same structure just different panels The same company will be installing this one as did the last one The sign is already in place They own the building but this is a new business they are not running The building was built in 1800 s There have been no complaints just compliments Key bank across the street has a lighted sign The height of the freestanding sign allows for sight over top of it There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Spooner closed the meeting at 6:37 PM for deliberations and findings. findings for Donald & Michele Vogel at 61 Hamburg Street (AKA 48 Hamburg St): 1. 61 Hamburg Street is in a C District and was built in 1835. 5
2. The new sign lens is replacing an existing internally lit sign with no changes to the size or location. 3. The only change from the existing sign is the text and color of the new sign. 4. The previous sign which was installed in 1989, complied with all Village sign codes applicable at the time of its original installation. 5. The request for this variance will not change the character of the neighborhood nor is it a self created hardship 6. The proposed variance is the minimum variance which will prevent the practical difficulty herein without violating the spirit and intent of the zoning code. 7. This request for a variance is not substantial 8. There were 27 notices sent out to the abutting neighbors and there were no responses or appearances. 9. This is a Type II Action under SEQR. Bruce Mitchell made a motion to accept the proposed findings and to GRANT a variance. The motion was seconded by Michael Campanella, with a unanimous vote to follow. Stephen Smith & Mary Ellen Reid, 312 Center Street Sections 285-44 front yard requirements for corner lot Section 285-17D(1)- front yard setback Section 285-8 accessory building in front yard Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:45 PM and introduced the (3) members of the 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated April 28, 2015 stating that relief is needed from Village Code Section 285-44 front yard requirements for corner lots, 285-17D(1) front yard setback and 285-8 accessory building in front yard. 2. The letter of appeal dated April 27, 2015 from Stephen Smith and Mary Reid was read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer and made a part of the record. 6
IT APPEARING that this matter was not referred to the Erie County Division of Planning with Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications received on the matter. Code Enforcement Officer Bill Kramer replied that no other communications had been received. Chairman, Spooner asked Stephen Smith and Mary Reid to present their case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Smith & Ms. Reid offered the following points on behalf of the variance request: The kayaks have been stored in the barn in the past but Stephen has health issues and now wants to park the cars in the barn. The kayaks are now stored outside and is covered with a tarp but this is unattractive To extend the driveway to the east would disturb some trees. The kayaks have to be accessible to a car which limits the placement for storage and the trailer is 10 wide They can then back the car into the addition to the accessory building This is a corner lot The entrance to the barn is on the west side and a fence from the house to the barn connects on the west side. There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Spooner closed the meeting at 6:55 PM for deliberations and findings. findings for Stephen Smith and Mary Reid at 312 Center Street: 1. 312 Center St is in an R District. 2. The residence was constructed in 1850. 3. The lot at 321 Center St is a corner lot on the south east corner of Center and Linden Sts. Therefore by code, there are two front yards associated with this property, Center St and Linden Ave. 4. There is an existing frame barn in the Linden Ave front yard which is currently used as a garage/workshop. The location of the new construction will be on the north side of the barn, 27.7 from the Linden Ave right of way. The new construction would be used for the storage of a 20 trailer and equipment. 5. Locating the proposed shed to the east would involve removal of several Walnut trees. 6. Locating the proposed shed on the south side of the existing barn would require the removal of an existing fence, reduce the usable rear yard space, and be difficult to maneuver the trailer into place. 7. There were 39 notices sent out to the abutting neighbors and there were no responses or appearances. 8. The request for this variance will not change the character of the neighborhood nor is it a self created hardship 7
8 9. The proposed variance is the minimum variance which will prevent the practical difficulty herein without violating the spirit and intent of the zoning code. 10. This is a Type II Action under SEQR. Michael Croft made a motion to accept the proposed findings and to GRANT a variance. The motion was seconded by Bruce Mitchell, with a unanimous vote to follow. Paige Huetter, 115 Hamlin Ave. Section 285-17D(1) front yard setback & Section 285-44 front yard of corner lot Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 7:00 PM and introduced the (3) members of the 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated April 30, 2015 stating that relief is needed from Village Code Section 285-17D(1) front yard setback and Section 285-44 front yard of a corner lot. 2. The letter of appeal from Paige Huetter was read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer and made a part of the record. IT APPEARING that this matter was not referred to the Erie County Division of Planning with Chairman, Spooner asked Paige Huetter to present her case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Huetter offered the following points on behalf of the variance request: She is asking for the maximum variance but may not use it This will stick with the character and history of East Aurora The side door entrance is a safer way to come in and out instead of back deck Back deck is closest to the garage and is most practical Neighbor likes the idea because he has the same set up He was not able to attend the meeting tonight It will be a covered entrance with the post at 4 which is about the same as the swing of the door The sidewalks in front of the proposed addition were repaired in December. They needed repair because due to a gas leak
There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Spooner closed the meeting at 7:07 PM for deliberations and findings. findings for Paige Huetter at 115 Hamlin Avenue: 1. 115 Hamlin Ave is in an R District 2. The residence was constructed in 1951. 3. The lot at 115 Hamlin Avenue is a corner lot on the northwest corner of Hamlin and Parkdale Avenues. Therefore by code there are two front yards associated with this property, Hamlin Ave and Parkdale Ave. 4. There is an existing entry on Parkdale Ave. 5. The proposed mud room would be 6 deep and 7 wide and would provide weather protection and provide a location for inclement clothing and gear. This would provide better access to the garage which is located on the west side of the house. 6. For safety reasons, snow and ice accumulation prevents use of the rear entrance off the deck on the winter 7. There were 29 notices sent out regarding this variance with one Parkdale resident in attendance and spoke in favor of the new construction. 8. The requested variance will not change the character of the neighborhood. 9. The proposed variance is the minimum variance which will prevent the practical difficulty herein without violating the spirit and intent of the zoning code. 10. This is a Type II Action under SEQR. Bruce Mitchell made a motion to accept the proposed findings and to GRANT a variance. The motion was seconded by Michael Campanella, with a unanimous vote to follow. A motion was made by Mike Campanella to close the meeting at 7:45 PM seconded by Mike Croft with a unanimous vote to follow. Respectfully Submitted, 9 Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals