HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1977-09-26 � t
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEI,CPMENT BOARD 14EETING
26 September 1977 , Council Chamber, 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: R. Bordon, D. Fuller, R. Moran, Chairman LeGrace Henson, R. Hildreth
ALSO: H. ,M. Van Cort, A. Tzivaeris, Mrs. Ray, Mr. & Mrs. Hoose, Mr. Tavelli,
Members of the Press and Others.
1. Chairperson Benson called the meeting to order.
2. Mr. Moran MOVED and Mr. Bordoni seconded that the minutes of the August 29
meeting be approved as submitted. CARRIED.
s
3. Special order of business. None.
4. Zoning cases.
a. Appeal 1170: Regtest for .an area variance to construct an addition to
the rear of the two family house at 309 Hector Street. The house is non-
conforming in that it is less than nine feet (9') from the front property
line; a twenty-five foot (25' ) front yard setback is required in the R2a
use district in which the property is located.
In reviewing this, the staff found no objection to recommending approval.. The
house, while it is located close to the front property line, is on a very large
lot. The owner said he was planning to add to an existing kitchen and bedroom,
and noted that the bedroom would not be rented out. A neighbor residing at 311
Hector Street wanted to know how close the addition would come to her property
line. It was ascertained that there would be at least ten feet from the addition
to her line, and she had no objections. Mr. Moran MOVED that the Board recommend
approval. Mr. Bordoni seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
b. Appeal 1171: Request for an area variance to construct a two-family dwel-
ling at 119-121 Giles Street, in an R3b use district. When the building
is constructed, the property will have front and aide yard deficiencies.
Mr. Van Cort noted that the staff was recommending in favor of granting the re-
quest, for the fourth time. Staff felt the home would be in accordance with
planning objectives and would be an asset to the neighborhood. He explained that
because of procedural difficulties, the BZA could not hear the case last month,
so that the Planning and Development Board was required to hear the case again.
Mr. Bordoni MOVED that the Planning and Development Baord recommend approval.
Mr. Moran seconded.
1 •
P & D BOARD MEETING Minutes 2 26 September 1977
A neighbor residing at 144 Giles Street said he was still concerned about the
shortage of parking on Giles Street, and that he had never seen plans for the
proposed house. He said that he and the other neighbors had no objection to
construction of the house, but that they were all concerned about the parking
shortage and the appearance of the structure including a parking pad. Mr.-
Van Cort apologized for not having the drawings z° the meeting, but said they
could be viewed at the next Board of Zoning App.-=._ `.s meeting or at the Building
Comissioner's office. The neighbor said he wan:_ , to go on the record regarding
the parking problem, as there are now seven hove on the street, only three of
which have on-site parking. Mr. Bordoni sugges,� . he contact the councilmen
from his district, Mr. Boronkay or Ms. Holman, ask them to investigate the
parking problem The motion was then CARRIED unan *nously. The Board of Planning
and Development, at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Hoose, directed Mr. Van Cort
to communicate with the Superintendant of Public Works regarding placement of
a no parking sign near 144 Giles Street.
c. Appeal 1172: Request for an area variance to construct an addition to
the building at 330 West State Street in a B2 use district. Construction
of theaddition would extend to two feet of the property line; a five
foot side yard is required in a B2 district.
Staff noted that the property is east of Arnold's Furniture and the appellant, r
who is a sign painter, would like room inside his premises in which to paint
signs on vehicles. The appellant said that this requires a separate room. The
appeal states that most properties extend from lot line to lot line, and that
this addition would not change the character of the district since use would
be the same. Staff pointed out, however, that there is residential use in the
building, and that an area variance is needed because the addition would come
within two feet of an adjoining building, rather than the required five feet
for a side yard. Mr. R. Christopher owner of the building and the business,
said he would be enclosing the entranceway to the apartments, and that he con-
sidered that to the occupant's advantage. He noted that there are two air-con-
ditioner-occupied windows in the adjoining building, which is why he did not
seek to build right up to the property line. Mr. Van Cort wondered if building
so close would block the secondary egress for tenants, and noted that materials
used in a sign shop are very flammable. He also noted the presence of an in-
accessible courtyard on the east side of the building. He said the staff's
primary concerns were for fire safety and off-street parking. The staff had
requested a recommendation from the Fire Department which was, however, not
available in time for the meeting. The appellant said that he does no spraying
of paint on the premises, that all signs were hand lettered, and therefore
there was less flammability danger than there is in other sign operations. He
also felt that expansion would diminish pos.sibiity of fire, because present
crowding is a hazard. Mr. Bordoni asked whether trucks would be left on the
premises overnight and said he was concerned with fire connected with such action.
The appellant replied that they would be. Mr. Moran asked whether the appellant
planned to install a sprinkler system. He replied that he did not plan to do
so, but was considering installing fire-retardant material on the ceiling. He
noted that the addition would be constructed of cinderblock.
Mr. Fuller MOVED that -the Board recommend approval conditional on the Fire De-
partment's satisfaction that the addition would not create a fire hazard. Mr.
Moran seconded. It was determined that the overhead door to be connected to the
e
P & D BOARD MEETING MINUTES - 3 - 26 September 1977
proposed addition would not block the public right-of-way. Motion CARRIED
unanimously.
d. Appeal 1173: Request for an area variance to convert the old grocery
store at 213 South Titus Avenue to an apartment in an R2b use district.
The property is deficient in lot size, width and coverage and lacks the
required yard setbacks
The appellant, Mr. Paul Tavelli, noted that he was the owner of the property
in name only, and that he had a contract to sell the property for the Spencer's.
The property, requires area variances in that it is deficient in lot size (has
1810 SF; 3,000 required) coverage (has 580 coverage; 35% permitted) , front
yard (has 2' front yard; 10' is required) side yard (has 2' side yard; 5 .
is required) and rear yard (has 2' ; 20' is required) . Staff felt the location
is a dangerous corner for traffic, since visibility is poor. There is a one-car
garage and room for another car in the driveway. The appellant explained that
the structure is in bad repair and on the verge of being condemned. It needs
new wiring and plumbing. There is now one apartment on the second floor. There
is no yard, and thus it would be difficult to rent to a family with children.
Staff felt that while the owners should be permitted to use their property, rent-
ing the property to six unrelated individuals, as permitted in an R2 zone,
would be a detriment to the neighborhood, not an asset. A grocery is permitted
although special permit is required. Staff felt structure should be asea-as,.
a one-family house. Mr. Varl Cort, on the other hand, felt it would be diffi-
cult to put a single family in a house without a yard. The appellant noted
that the structure has been for sale for two and a half years. A kitchen and
bathroom are located on the upper floor. The greatest number of bedrooms which
could be built in the upper portion of the building is three. There are puf-
chasers interested in the building who are planning to put three bedrooms on
the first floor. They had expressed an interest in two bedrooms upstairs. Appel-
lant did not know whether the purchasers were planning to occupy the premises
themselves.
Mr. Bordoni was concerned that the house might not be owner occupied, and that
there might be as many as five unrelated persons living in the house with five
cars to be parked. He suggested it might be better to tear the building down,
and encourage a neighbor to purchase the lot as an addition to his or her yard.
The appellant noted that the mortgage is $12,000, and it would be a hardship to
tear the building down. Mr. Van 'Cort suggested the Board might want to recom-
mend approval with the condition that no more. than four unrelated persons be
permitted to occupy the structure. The Appellant noted that he had sent notice
to the neighbors of the meeting. None were present. Mr. Bordoni replied that
many nearby property owners were absentee landlords, and that the actual neigh-
bors may not know of this appeal.
Mr. Moran MOVED to recommend approval with the condition that no more than four
unrelated persons be permitted to live on the premises. Mr. Fuller seconded.
CARRIED unanimously.
5. Communications: Mr. Van Cort distributed to the members of the Board a letter
from Town Supervisor Walter Schwann concerning Route 96. There was no comment.
•
J
P & D BOARD MEETING Minutes - 4 - 29 September 1977
6. Committee Reports: None.
t
7. Old Business: None. r
8. New Business: Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Willow Avenue. A request
has been made for subdivision of property at 707 Willow Avenue, in an I-1 zone,
into two parcels. The proposed subdivision would result in certain nonconformi-
ties with zoning regulations. h
The owners of the property are Donohue-Halverson Plumbers, also known as the
West Seneca Corporation. They want to sell a portion of their property, which
portion would have no street frontage. The proposed subdivision would also
render their remaining parcel non-conforming as to rear yard and side yard.
The uses contemplated for the property are permitted in an I-1 zone. The pur-
chaser assured the staff that access granted over the right-of-way is a condition
of purchase. Staff recommended in favor of approval conditional on provision
of the following:
1. Provision of a certified copy of the purchase offer conditions per-
taining to access and water and s�wer service, and consultation with
the City Engineer for his approval of such conditions.
2. Consultation with, and approval from the City Fire Chief and Building
Commissioner concerning compliance, or necessary actions to comply,
with Fire and Building Codes respecting the adjacency of structures
on the proposed new property line.
Mr. Van Cort explained that this is a preliminary approval and in no way obligated
the Board to final approval. . Mr. Bordoni remarked that staff's conditions
seemed quite thorough, and that if the purchaser was willing to comply with these
conditions it seemed reasonable to grant a preliminary approval. He so MOVED.
Mr. Moran seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35.
B
k
J
i