**TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND**
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Marion Fabiano, Betty Harris, Dario Violanti, Peter McKee, Chairman, Bob
Mesmer and Alternate member, Tim Phillips
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
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
June 25, 2009 and the Grand Island
PennySaver June 23, 2009 were
available to those present.
NEW
BUSINESS:
1) 4344 East River
Road Anthony Mastantuono Property is zoned R1B. Proposed is the construction of a 10 x 14 x 8 high
shed on the waterside of the property. Per
Section 49-27C-4 of the Zoning Code, the maximum allowable height of accessory
structures on the waterside of properties is 4; the Applicant is requesting
an 11 6 height, therefore, requires a 7 6 height variance.
When complete only 1 2 of the building will be visible above road,
and therefore, there would be no line of site issues.
Appearing
was the Appellant stating that he wishes to build a 10 x 14 x 11 6
high shed on the waterside of his property.
Speakers in favor:
Norman
Gibbon, 4342 East River Road, Grand Island, NY 14072
John Wieckowski, 4374 East
River Road, Grand Island, NY 14072
A motion was made by Violanti/ Mesmer to GRANT an 8 height variance for the building of a 10 x 14 x
11 6 high shed on the waterside of the property at 4344 East River Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Fabiano, Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1. the
requested variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties.
2.
of the slope of the
property.
3. per
Section 49-27 C-4 of the Zoning Code, there is no obstruction of view.
2)
14 Cardinal Lane Joshua & Morgan Milovich
Property is zoned R1D. The property is located on the corner of Cardinal Lane and
Stony Point Road. As a corner lot,
they are considered to have two front yards, and must obey the corresponding
front yard setbacks. They are
proposing to install a 6 high wooden stockade fence in the front yard
setback. The fence will be 57
off the side of the house, per Section 49-27A of the Zoning Code, the minimum
allowable front yard setback is 100; they have 13 before the setback
begins, and are therefore, requesting a 44 front yard setback variance.
Joshua
and Morgan Milovich appeared and stated that they live on a very busy corner lot
and have no privacy. They have two
dogs and are planning on starting a family and would like to install a fence for
privacy as well as to keep out some of the dust and noise.
Speaker in favor:
Eric
Folk, 2709 Stony Point Road, Grand Island, New York
Board
felt that given the busy nature of the intersection, the fence was too close to
the road and may be a safety hazard, and the variance needs to be reduced from
the 44 requested to possibly 32 which would place the fence 20 from the
sidewalk.
A motion was made by Mesmer/Harris to GRANT a 32 front yard setback variance, as per drawing, for the
construction of a 6 high fence at 14
Cardinal Lane.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Fabiano, Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This
action is taken because:
1.
this is a difficult situation with the busy intersection and the need to
keep the area safe for kids and dogs.
2.
this is a reasonable compromise.
3.
of the difficulty in having two front yard setbacks.
4.
the line of site problem has been diminished.
3)
2580 East River Road Henry Sadowski
Property is zoned R1C. Proposed is the construction of a dock, deck and stairway in
the right of way. Per Section
49-27A of the Zoning code, the minimum allowable setback is 45.
Appearing was Henry
Sadowski. He stated that he wishes to build stairs a 12 x 15 deck and the
dock leading right off the deck. His
property drops off considerably, approximately 15 to 16 from the edge of
the road. There is no longer a
gazebo planned as was granted in a variance obtained a couple years ago.
A motion was made by Violanti/Mesmer to GRANT a 44.5 front yard setback variance for the construction of
a stairway, dock and deck on the waterside of at 2580 East River Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Fabiano, Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This action is taken
because
1.
the unique geographical limitations of the lot.
2.
it is in keeping with prior variances granted in the area.
3.
it is a safety issue.
4)
1762 Bedell Road Joseph Killian
Property is zoned R1D. Proposed is the
construction of a 20 3 x 8 ground level front porch.
Per Schedule 1 of the Zoning Code, the minimum allowable side yard
setback is 10; the appellant currently has 1 and is therefore requesting a
9 side yard setback variance. The
home sits behind the garage and is setback quite a distance from the road.
Appearing
was the Appellant; he stated that the house does not have a basement, and when
they get rain against the front of the house, it puddles.
It would also add to the curb appeal.
He is set back approximately 60 from the road.
The porch will not extend beyond the edges of the home.
It will be just below the two existing windows and will have 4 pillars
set in concrete. Roof will match
existing building.
A motion was made by Fabiano/Mesmer to GRANT the 9 side yard setback variance for the construction of a
20 3 x 8 ground level front porch at 1762
Bedell Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Fabiano, Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This action is taken
because:
1.
this is an older, unique property and is setback from the road.
2.
the porch will be no closer to side yard than the house is currently.
3.
the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area
variance.
5)
54 Garden Parkway Richard and Colleen Hiam
Property is zoned R1D. Proposed is the
construction of an 18 x 16 three (3) season sun room at the rear of the
home. The home is at the corner of
Garden Parkway and Adel Lane which is a paper street.
They must obey two front yard setbacks.
Per Schedule 1 of the Zoning Code, the minimum allowable front yard
setback is 35; they are requesting a 7 front yard setback variance.
Appearing
was Mr. Hiam and stated that he would like to construct an 18 x 16 three
(3) season sun room off the back of the home in the area where the patio now
exists.
A motion was made by Violanti/Mesmer to GRANT a 7 front yard setback variance from Schedule 1 for the
construction of an 18 x 16 three (3) season sun room at the rear of 54
Garden Parkway.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Fabiano, Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
Rationale: This action is taken
because
1. the requested variance will not
create a detriment to nearby properties.
2.
the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood.
3.
it will follow the existing building side line and it is in general conformity
with the neighborhood.
6)
2825 & 2819 Staley Road Wendy Greenawalt and Juanita Greenawalt-Slobe
Properties are zoned R1A. The
Applicants are requesting that he side yard setback from a pond be reduced from
50 to 0 for the existing recreational pond which is crossing their
property lines.
Appearing was Wendy
Greenawalt and Juanita Greenawalt-Slobe and Richard Greenawalt. They stated that the pond is used for drainage for the
existing home at 2819 Staley Road, and if were to be eliminated, that would
create problems for the adjacent lower level elevation properties. They are agreeable to filing a perpetual cross access
agreement and drainage easement.
A motion was made by Fabiano/Violanti to GRANT a variance to reduce the required setback of 50 from a
recreational pond to 0 at 2825 and
2819 Staley Road, with the covenants set forth in the June 19, 2009 memo
from Robert Westfall, P.E., Assistant Municipal Engineer for the Town of Grand
Island. This variance is
conditional upon the Applicants filing a perpetual cross access agreement and
drainage easement on their deeds.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
Fabiano
Carried
Rationale: This action is taken
because
1.
the pond is needed for drainage of properties other than the applicants,
and the cross easements would benefit the neighborhood by having
multiple parties responsible for drainage protecting the whole neighborhood.
2.
of the unique situation.
3.
the requested variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties.
4.
the signing of the perpetual cross access agreement and drainage easement on their deeds will alleviate any future problems.
5.
the existing lots are conforming lots.
No new lot is being created. The
lots are consistent with the neighborhood.
The prior variance was only required
due to the timing of a garage being present prior to a home, no other setback
are involved in this variance.
6.
while the problem is self created, the solution provides better benefits
to the neighborhood than removing the pond.
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.
3) 2825 Staley Road
Wendy Greenawalt Property is zoned R1A. Proposed
is the construction of a 3 car garage with existing 28 x 40 garage which
is equal to 4 garage spaces. This
item was tabled at the June 4, 2009 ZBA meeting until the
pond issue had been addressed satisfactorily.
The Applicant filed a new variance application to reduce the side yard
setback from a pond from 50 to 0 for the existing recreational pond.
Appearing
were Wendy & Richard Greenwalt. Have
an existing detached 28 x 40 four car garage and are requesting to build a
three car garage for a total of seven garage spaces.
A motion was made by Mesmer/Violanti to GRANT a variance for three (3) additional garage spaces at 2825
Staley Road.
Roll
Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
Fabiano
Carried
Rationale: This action is taken
because:
1.
the Board recognizes the need for more vehicle storage.
2.
the distance from the road provides a desirable setting for this type of
structure.
3.
of the unique division of property.
4)
971 East River Road David Sutton on behalf of the Riverstone Grill
Property is zoned B3 Hamlet Business and R1D.
At the June 4, 2009 ZBA meeting proposed was the construction of a 12
x 35 patio at the side of the property.
Per Schedule 1 of the Zoning Code, the minimum allowable front yard
setback is 65, the Appellant currently has 12.34 and was proposing to come
out 12 and therefore, was requesting a front yard setback variance of 65.
Also, per Schedule 3 of the Zoning Code and as outlined in Section
49152A, they were requesting permission to have seven less parking spaces than
required. The item was tabled for
plan revisions.
No one appeared on behalf
of the Riverstone Grill. The ZBA
moved to adopt a resolution prepared for them by Dan Spitzer, Town Attorney.
A motion was made by Violanti/Fabiano to ACCEPT the following resolution as their denial, and rationale for
the variance application of 971 East River Road, the Riverstone Grill for the
addition of a patio to the north and east sides of its existing facility:
WHEREAS,
Riverstone Grill submitted an application to the Town of Grand Island Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) to add an outdoor patio to its existing facility,
that included two area variance requests; and
WHEREAS,
the building is currently located on two parcels located in the B-3 zoning
district, and the accompanying parking lot is located on an adjacent lot in a
R-1D zoning district; and
WHEREAS,
the restaurant and parking lot are legal, pre-existing, and non-conforming
uses; and
WHEREAS,
to add the patio as proposed, the applicant would need a side-yard and
front-yard setback area variance as well as a use variance to add parking in the
adjacent lot; and
WHEREAS,
the ZBA has duly considered the application materials, and the written and oral
information submitted both for and against the project; and
WHEREAS,
the ZBA has taken into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the area
variances are granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety,
and welfare of the neighborhood or community by considering: 1)
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, 2) whether the benefit sought can be achieved by some
feasible method, other than an area variance, 3) whether the variance requested
is substantial, 4) whether the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on
the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and 5)
whether the alleged difficulty was self created;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by
the Town of Grand Island Zoning Board of Appeals as follows:
1.
The applicants request for a side-yard area variance and a front-yard
area variance is denied because the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare
of the neighborhood and community outweighs the benefit to the applicant;
specifically:
a.
Adding the patio as proposed will negatively affect the character of the
neighborhood. The needed variances will cause inconsistencies with the
prevailing neighborhood integrity, which is largely residential.
For instance, there would be no noise buffer between the outdoor patio
and the nearby residences. The patio is proposed to accommodate an additional 20 patrons
outside. The increased noise from
20 additional customers and the services required to wait on them outside is
significant. There will also be
increased noise and related impacts from the traffic expected from the 20
additional patrons. Such noise,
volume, and traffic increases are inconsistent with the primarily residential
area.
There
would be an addition of a structure, and visible site changes would occur.
The patio would add over 570 square feet of dining/serving/congregating
space. As recognized on the
applicants own site plan, the patio must be fenced in accordance with all
legal requirements, including the New York State Liquor Law, Town Code, and New
York State Building Code requirements. The
applicant is proposing a decorative metal railing for this purpose.
These changes increase the visual impact to the neighbors and
neighborhood without any screening or buffering, or the potential for any such
screening or buffering. This
property is highly dissimilar to the prevailing conditions in the neighborhood
with respect to bulk and area requirements, which is very significant.
In
addition, the lot is not sufficient to accommodate the patio.
The patio would be located less than 20 feet from Colony Road with no
protection from traffic. This is a considerable safety issue. Riverstone also has no legal way to add parking to the
current allotted parking in the adjacent lot.
In
sum, there appears to be no benefit to the neighborhood with the addition of an
outdoor patio, only to the applicant.
b.
The ZBA also considered whether Riverstones goal could be achieved by
some other method, or in other words, whether feasible alternatives exist.
Although the patio could be located elsewhere on the property, it cannot
be located elsewhere and still enjoy a partial river view. This factor would weigh in favor of the applicant except for
the fact that no matter where Riverstone seeks to add the patio, the issue with
the lack of parking to accommodate the increased number of patrons for outdoor
seating remains. There is no legal
way for Riverstone to add the patio and still provide the required increased
parking in the adjacent lot or on the existing site.
Moreover,
a feasible alternative of the restaurant/bar remaining in its current
configuration, accommodating the current number of patrons, remains.
There is no requirement that the restaurant/bar offer a patio for dining.
c.
The requested front-yard setbacks are substantial and there will be a
perceptible change on site. For the
front yard, Riverstone needs to meet a 65-foot setback, and requests a 65 foot
variance, a difference of 65 feet or 100 percent.
The
overall
effect of the area variance requests is substantial and unacceptable to this largely residential area.
d.
For the same reasons cited in section a, above, the proposal will have a
negative physical effect on the neighborhood.
The community will see significant changes to the existing site,
particularly those neighbors in closest proximity and those residents traveling
by the facility along Colony Road. The
parcels at issue border a significant number of existing properties in
residential zoning districts. There
are considerable health, safety, and welfare concerns due to the proximity of
the proposed patio to Colony Road.
e.
The difficulty at the site is self-created.
Even though the ZBA understands and appreciates the logic and reasoning
behind the application, the applicant knew about the site restrictions when it
purchased the property. For
example, it knew the site dimensions, building location, and status as a legal,
non-conforming use would limit expansion opportunities.
It knew its parcels were zoned both residential (R-1D) and business (B-3)
at the time of purchase. It knew or
should have known what uses were allowed in both districts and the limitations
that non-conforming parcels and uses carry, as here.
There
is nothing preventing Riverstone from continuing its restaurant/bar business as
it currently exists, and there is nothing requiring the addition of an outdoor
patio for dining.
2.
This resolution shall be effective immediately.
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Violanti, Fabiano, Harris, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
5)
2255 Grand Island Boulevard Michael Jordan of Redtek Development -
Property is zoned R3, B1, and R1D. Proposed
is the construction of a Senior Housing Complex with building walls greater than
160 in length. Per Schedule 1 of
the Zoning Code, the maximum allowable building length is 160.
The item was tabled indefinitely at the owners request.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Documents
received from Grand Island residents will be filed along with variance
application for 971 East River Road.
MINUTES:
A motion
made by Fabiano/Violanti to ACCEPT the
May 7, 2009 minutes as
written.
Roll
Call:
Ayes: Harris, Fabiano,
Violanti, McKee, and Mesmer
Noes:
None
Carried
OTHER
MINUTES RECEIVED AND FILED:
Board
of Architectural Review Minutes, March 17, 2009,
April 21, 2009
Planning
Board Agenda, May 11, 2009
Planning
Board Minutes, April 13, 2009
Town
Board Agenda, May 4, 2009, May 18, 2009
Town
Board Minutes, April 20, 2009, May 4, 2009
Adjournment: 8:00 p.m. on June 4, 2009