**TOWN
OF GRAND ISLAND**
ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
May
6, 2010
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Betty Harris, Dario Violanti, Peter McKee, Chairman, Bob Mesmer
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
Marion Fabiano, Alternate member, Tim Phillips
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dan
Linenfelser, Bill Shaw, Zoning Officers
Chairman,
Peter McKee opened the meeting at
7:00 p.m. He introduced the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and explained
the process. Copies of the Legal
Notice of Appeal to be heard at this meeting published in the Island Dispatch on
April 23, 2010 were available to
those present.
NEW
BUSINESS:
1) SBL# 24.10-1-6.2
Verizon Wireless
The
property is zoned OS Open Space, is Town owned, and is located next to
Veterans Park. Appearing on behalf
of the Appellant was Attorney Greg Nearpass of Nixon Peabody LLP from Rochester,
New York. Verizon is proposing a
125 monopole tower. The Town has
requested that Verizon consider alternative structures such as a bell tower,
which they are looking into.
Per Attorney Nearpass,
Section 49-196 of the Zoning Code does not specifically allow or disallow Cell
Towers in Open Space zoned areas. He
indicated that Verizon Wireless has met the documentation requirements for a Use
Variance. Verizon had originally
made application to the Town for a wireless telecommunications facility for the
Sandy Beach Cell Site search area in the fall of 2007, for property located off
of Huth Road. The Town requested
that Verizon meet with various neighbors and representatives of the Town for an
information meeting with regard to the Project.
Subsequent to this meeting,
Verizon Wireless agreed to examine several alternative sites which were
recommended by neighbors. In
applications dated March 31, 2008, Verizon applied to locate a tower for the
Sandy Beach Cell Site on residentially zoned property located off of Huth Road
and, alternatively, on residentially zoned property off of Garden Parkway. With both applications, the proposed tower was within 500
of residences, and thus did not comply with the Towns tower setback
requirements. Verizon re-examined
the search area for other properties that would achieve the coverage objectives
and complied with the Towns tower setback requirements.
Page 2
05/06/10
Finally on December 22,
2008, Verizon Wireless applied to locate the tower on Town owned property at
Veterans Park. During review, due
to a private deed restriction affecting Veterans Park, the Town requested that
the tower be moved to adjacent Town owned property not affected by any private
deed restriction. Verizon amended
its plan accordingly.
A tower at this location
provides the necessary coverage, and has substantial setbacks.
The tower will be more than 6 times its height from residences which
would be in compliance with the Towns tower setback requirements.
There would be zero homes within the Towns setback requirements, in
contrast to 33 homes near the site of the Island Presbyterian Church on Huth
Road and 15 homes on Garden Parkway.
Final approval will be from
the New York State Legislature since the site is park land.
Speakers
in opposition:
1)
Craig Eddy, 19 Island Park Circle Feels Verizons application does not
meet the necessary criteria for a Use Variance, and should be denied.
Veterans Park is not Verizons first choice, making this hardship
self created. If approved, this
tower will destroy the only remaining wooded portion of Veterans Park.
This location does not provide the coverage objective, requiring future
additional towers be built.
2)
Jean Konopczynski, 131 Old Carriage House Road Concerned about children in
the area as well as house values.
3)
Brian Sweet, 224 Woodstream
representing Friends and Neighbors for the Preservation of Veterans Park
Feels Towers are not permitted in municipal park lands protected under New York
States Park Alienation Act, Assemblyman Hoyt opposes as well as Senator
Thompson, Verizons proposal doesnt include any give back land for the land
they are taking away, puts wild life residing in the park at risk and requests
that Verizon provide data requesting Verizons drop call data, feels that
Verizon should re-visit Huth Road site as they voluntarily abandoned that site.
Site still leaves significant gaps in coverage at the North end of the
Island. Request that the ZBA hold
Verizon to a greater degree of showing due to the parks status.
Feels Dr. Johnson is very biased consultant.
There were no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed.
ZBA cannot vote on the variance until the SEQR is completed.
2) 2046 East River
Road Karl Nesensohn
The
property is located in a Residential District.
The Appellant appeared and stated that he would like to install an 8
pergola open on all sides on the waterfront portion of his property.
Page 3
05/06/10
Per
ZBA member Violanti the property has a large drop off and the shoreline in this
area is well below the roadbed so the pergola would have minimal visual impact.
Per
Section 49-27C of the Zoning Code, the maximum height of an accessory structure
on riverside lots is 4, the proposed pergola is 8, therefore a 4 height
variance is being requested.
Speaker in favor:
1) Peter Schwable, 2063 East River Road No detriment to
area, unique property sits down the embankment below road level, would not block
vision, not visible to traffic.
A motion was made by Violanti/Mesmer to GRANT a 4 height variance on the riverside portion of the
property for the construction of an 8 open pergola at 2046 East River Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
the requested variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties.
2.
there are no line of sight issues.
3.
the Board recognizes the unique and steep drop off of the property.
3)
3089 East River Road Whitehaven Cemetery Association:
The
property is zoned OS Open Space. Appearing
on behalf of the Appellant was Robert DeGlopper, President of the Whitehaven
Cemetery Association. Mr. DeGlopper
indicated that the cemetery is full, and the only way to keep the cemetery open
and operating was the installation of a columbarium. The cemetery was in existence prior to the road and prior to
the Zoning Code, where the cemetery exists right now is within the required
front yard setback. The
columbarium will be no closer to the road than the existing building.
Per Section 49-27A of the
Zoning Code, the minimum allowable front yard setback is 90 from the center
of the right-of-way. The proposed
columbarium will have a 68 front yard setback, which would require a 22
front yard setback variance.
A motion was made by Violanti/Mesmer to GRANT a 22 front yard setback variance for the construction of a
210 x 8 x 4 high columbarium at 3089
East River Road.
Page 4
05/06/10
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
the cemetery was in existence prior to the Zoning Code or the road.
2.
the requested variance is not intrusive.
4)
2655 Fix Road Mary Beth & Jeffrey Smith:
The
property is zoned R-1A, Low Density Single Family Residential District.
Appearing was the Appellant, Mary Beth Smith.
She is requesting a contingent approval for a 7 height variance for a
60 x 90 x 25 high addition to an existing barn.
She wants to put up a riding arena so she can work her horses through the
winter months. She indicated that
this will not be a commercial operation, and that she is adding onto the
building so that she has a place to ride. She
currently has 10 stalls and recently purchased 20 acres behind her property for
a total of 35 acres, which would, in essence, allow her to have 10 horses.
She has applied for a Special Use permit to board horses, but said that
she is getting the feeling that the Town frowns upon such operations.
Appellant indicated that this variance is contingent upon any current or
future court actions.
Per Section 49-166E of the Zoning Code, the maximum allowable
building height in residential areas is 18. The
existing building is 21; the proposed building will be 23 6, which will
require a 6 height variance.
Speakers
in opposition:
1)
Paul Schultz, 2661 Fix Road next door neighbor and brother of the
Appellant. Property in question is
in a New York State Court of Appeals over property distribution, requested
Zoning Board withhold ruling until such time as the appeal has been decided.
2)
Christopher Russell, 2689 Fix Road there is approximately 60 to 65
between the two properties. The
proposed addition is larger than the Town Hall and will sit 65 off his
property. The Appellant has stated
to Mr. Russell that she wants to run a commercial stable and there has been
construction going on inside the barn. She
has talked about leaving her teaching job and working horses in her back yard.
Mr. Russell is concerned about his property value decreasing.
A motion was made by Mesmer/ Violanti to GRANT a 6 height variance for a 60 x 90 x 23 6 high
addition to the existing barn at 2655 Fix
Road, with the understanding that there will be no commercial operation on the
property what-so-ever. The approval
is granted with the stipulation that there will be no commercial operations, and
if there is that will be grounds for reconsideration and the variance may be
rescinded at that time, making the variance null and void.
Page 5
05/06/10
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
of the distance from the road approximately 250.
2.
6 change in height that far from the road will not make any
difference.
3.
it is in keeping with size lot and need.
4.
the Appellant could build an 18 barn without a variance.
5)
3030 Stony Point Road Patricia Burg:
The
property is zoned R-1D, Medium Density Single Family Residential.
The Appellant appeared stating she wishes to construct a barn and grazing
area for horses on her property. The
Appellant currently has one horse, but has a permit for two.
Per Section 49-168B of the
Zoning Code, the minimum allowable distance of a barn and grazing areas from
neighboring structures is 200, which would require a 115 variance.
Speaker
in favor:
1)
Mary Chairburg, 3018 Stony
Point Road, Appellant is her niece and she is in favor of the variance.
Niece keeps the property up and she doesnt want any more trees cut
down.
A motion was made by Mesmer/Violanti to GRANT a 115 variance for the construction of a 30 x 30 barn
and grazing area at 3030 Stony Point
Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
the requested variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties.
2.
of the unique situation and the curve of the road.
3.
it is in keeping with the neighborhood.
6)
79 Elsie Lane Timothy Hanlon:
The
property is zoned R-1E, High Density Single Family Residential.
The Appellant appeared and proposed to demolish the existing garage and
build a
Page 6
05/06/10
new,
attached garage which would be 3 closer to the property line.
He sited the need for additional storage.
He will be going from a 1 car to a 2 car garage.
Per Schedule I of the
Zoning Code, the minimum allowable side yard setback is 8. The Appellant is proposing a 3 side yard setback, which
would require a 5 side yard setback variance.
A motion was made by Mesmer/Violanti to GRANT a 5 side yard setback variance for the construction of a
two car attached garage at 79 Elsie Lane.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
the Board recognizes the need for more vehicle storage.
2.
there will be no detriment to nearby properties.
3.
it is in keeping with the neighborhood.
7)
4388 East River Road Michael Linenfelser:
The
property is zoned R-1B, Single Family Residential. The Appellant appeared stating he wishes to construct a 12
x 20 x 11 permanent picnic shelter over an existing 24 x 14 concrete
pad on the waterfront portion of his property.
The shelter will be centered over the pad and be open on all sides.
Per Section 49-27C.4 of the
Zoning Code, the maximum allowable height of an accessory structure on shoreline
lots is 4, the proposed picnic shelter is 11, which would require a 7
height variance.
A motion was made by Harris/Violanti to GRANT a 7 height variance as well as a 37 front yard setback
variance for the construction of a 12 x 20 x 11 open, permanent picnic
shelter on the waterside of the property at 4388 East River Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Harris, Violanti, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
there is no line of site issue.
2.
no detriment to nearby properties.
Page 7
05/06/10
8)
3294 Sandy Beach Road Gary Lazik:
The
property is zoned R-1E, High Density, Single Family Residential.
The Appellant appeared stating he has demolished the original house, but
left the existing garage. He would
like to construct a new home for his mother with an additional garage.
Per Schedule 1 of the
Zoning Code, the minimum allowable front yard setback is 30, the Appellant is
proposing to have a 28 7 front yard setback which would require a 1
5 front yard setback variance.
A motion was made by Violanti/Mesmer to GRANT a 1 5 front yard setback variance for the construction
of a new home at 3294 Sandy Beach Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Harris, Violanti, Mesmer and McKee
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
it is an improvement.
2.
no detriment to nearby properties.
3.
it is in conformity with the neighborhood.
4.
the variance is de minimis.
OLD
BUSINESS:
1)
West River Road Nixon Peabody LLP
Proposed telecommunication tower on Russell & Patricia Colosis
property on West River Road. Zoning
Code 49-196C states that the setback for a telecommunication tower is 500
from a residential dwelling. The
proposed tower will be approximately 442 from the Colosi residence; therefore
a 58 setback variance is requested. Remains
tabled pending receipt of the SEQR report from the Town Board.
2) 2770 Long Road
Verizon Wireless Property is zoned M1. Proposed is a telecommunication facility.
Per Zoning Code Section 49-196C, there should be a 500 setback for the
fall down area. Tem remains tabled pending receipt of the SEQR report from
the Town Board.
4)
2065 East River Road Roger and Shirley Nye-
The Appellants attorney
emailed a proposed settlement agreement to the Zoning Board of Appeals members
for their review. The Board members
reviewed the proposed settlement and discussed same. At the December 3rd 2009 ZBA
Page 8
05/06/10
meeting, after careful
review, the Board unanimously decided to DENY
the proposed settlement request. The
rationale was that the variance granted was for an open porch which has been
previously defined as one which has three (3) open sides.
MINUTES:
A motion
made by Harris/Mesmer to ACCEPT the
April 1, 2010 minutes as
written.
Roll
Call:
Ayes: Harris, Violanti, McKee,
and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
OTHER
MINUTES RECEIVED AND FILED:
Board
of Architectural Review Minutes,
Planning
Board Agenda, April 12, 2010
Planning
Board Minutes, March 8, 2010
Town
Board Agenda,
Town
Board Minutes, April 5, 2010, April 19, 2010
Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. on May 6, 2010