William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Catherine Wood, Secretary Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary

Transcription

1 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 18 th day of July, 2013 PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman Mike Campanella, Vice Chairman John Pagliaccio Mary (Molly) Flynn Bruce Mitchell Absent: Michael (Mike) Croft ALSO PRESENT: William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Catherine Wood, Secretary Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary George Hezel 357 Oakwood Avenue East Aurora, NY Brian Schofield 6738 East Creek Road South Wales, NY Chris and Robert Heyden 517 Fillmore Avenue East Aurora, NY Anne Heyden 517 Fillmore Avenue East Aurora, NY Bruce Wesbury, 8679 Broadway Lancaster NY Steve Krastev, 510 Main St (Charlie s Diner) Jacob Kaiser, 538 Oakwood Ave IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Bruce Wesbury on behalf of William Reuter Fence Height Variance at 804 Martin Drive East Aurora, NY Chairman, John Spooner called the meeting into order at 6:03 PM and introduced (4) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which constitutes a quorum. Spooner also thanked Catherine Wood and appreciates her work with the ZBA and wished her good luck. The May minutes to be approved at next meeting. Chairman, John Spooner asked Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer to read aloud the following: 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated June 28, 2013 stating that the fence plans for 804 Martin Drive was denied due to failure to meet the requirements as stated in East Aurora Village Code Section A which requires a fence not to exceed 42. Applicant is seeking a 6 height variance to allow a 4 fence in the front and/or side yard. The denial letter to be made part of the record. 1

2 2. The letter of appeal dated June 28, 2013 from Bruce Wesbury listing the grounds for the variance Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications received on the matter. 1. The letter of appeal dated June 28, 2013 from William Reuter listing the grounds for the variance 2. The letter dated July 17, 2013 from Jim Cafferty listing input and questions for the variance 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. Bruce Wesbury showed a brochure identifying styles of fence. He proceeded to present the following information: He wants to install a solid fence along Martin Drive for control because he has two dogs (showed photos of Schnauzers, one giant who weighs 75lbs and a small one who weighs 25lb) and one of them would bark if there was a chain link along the road. He is requesting 4 because the other dog would be able to sit its head on the top of a 3.6 fence. There may be an issue along the tree line but he is hoping to just prune them because he does not want to remove the 30 trees because they create a buffer. He did note that the dead pines in front will need to come down. If fence is in front of trees, then he has to go around in order to get to the other side of property to mow or maintain. Fence will be on Wesbury s property and he does not want to disturb the tree roots. The fence in the rear yard will be black chain link. The front entrance of the house faces east. He has tried an invisible fence with these dogs at a previous home but it was not successful with containing them. He wants to keep his dogs in and other animals out. He will have a white picket fence along the sides of the house running north-south. There will be 2 gates. The fence will be place 3-4 off the sidewalk on Martin Drive. He is not the official owner yet but closing is tentatively scheduled for August 5, 2013 The Zoning Board of Appeals discussed some concerns, including whether this lot constitutes a corner lot. The curve in the road makes it seems like a corner lot but corner lots need a second street which this lacks. It was discussed whether pieces would be inserted inside the chain link fence slats to prevent looking through to which Bruce Wesbury responded no. John Spooner pointed out that the brochure presented by Bruce Wesbury only offers fencing in heights of 4, 5, 6 and 8. Bill Kramer brought up a question posed by Jim Cafferty in his letter regarding the natural buffer being maintained. 2

3 Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any further questions or testimony. There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman, John Spooner closed the hearing at 6:25 PM for deliberations and findings. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Brian Schofield of Brian s Automotive Lighting variance at 518 Main Street East Aurora, NY Chairman, John Spooner called the meeting, which had been tabled from May 16, 2013, back into order at 6:30 PM. Chairman, Spooner asked Bill Kramer if there were any further communications received on the matter. 1. The dated June 25, 2013 from Robert Heyden as a formal complaint for the variance 2. The dated July 16, 2013 from Michelle Iwankow listing input for the variance 3. The letter of appeal dated July 5, 2013 from William Kramer, CEO, listing his review and subsequent determination of compliance. The appeal letter to be made part of the record. 4. The letter dated July 18, 2013 from Michael Campanella addressed to Bob Pierce, Village Attorney, listing a rebuttal to William Kramer s letter and questions for the variance request. The appeal letter to be made part of the record. 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. George Hezel, representative for Brian Schofield proceeded to present the following additional information to the Zoning Board of Appeals: The Village of East Aurora code is not knowable (unknowable) and is next to impossible to adhere to. He believes the property is in compliance and used a photo light meter to determine this. Mike Campanella read parts of the Village of East Aurora (VEA) Code Section (Commercial outdoor lighting standards) and (Types of luminaries for all exterior lighting; exceptions), reiterating the section that reads lights are required to be off by 11PM. He states the variance should be for the lights on after 11PM to comply with code Steve Krastev, owner of Charlie s Diner, spoke regarding the right for business owners to protect their buildings. He stated he had his attorney write letters to the ZBA regarding protection and 3

4 rights of business owners. John Spooner responded that the ZBA has never received any such letters and perhaps they were sent directly to the Village Board. Krastev went on to say several things: The lights in lot are not disturbing anyone on the lot with them shining down. He has encountered two attempts for drug trafficking with one yielding Police assistant and arrest. In the past, two of his waitresses were assaulted on their way into work in the morning There was a fire a few months ago behind the garage. He and Brian have an agreement for the lights to be on Bruce s building and not on Charlie s because more houses are behind Charlie s than Bruce s. There are trees 45 tall at the rear of the property and they choose not to cut them down. Property owners at the rear of the property have encroached about 15 on Charlie s property and 10 on Bruce s property. He is aware that Brian s has made several attempts to correct lighting. The lights at other businesses up & down Main St are far worse. Many houses have lights in the back yard for protection so why can t businesses? Mike Campanella questions what else Bruce s has done to protect his property. There is no sign, fence or gate to deter others. George Hezel states that there is an easement that Charlie s uses for customer parking so a fence would disrupt that besides a sign would not be effective if someone really wants to do damage. Campanella feels the lighted lot creates an attractive nuisance. Brian has cameras in the back and states the lights take 20 minutes to come on so motion detection lights would not work with these kinds of lights. Bruce s Automotive and Charlie s used to be all one lot but since split, Steve owns the entire driveway to the back of the Steve s building so Brian would have no access to his bay or parking lot in back if he weren t able to go across Charlie s lot. Brian cannot quarantine his lot nor can tractors for deliveries turn around on the lot with a fence. There is a fence at the back of the property. Brian made note that people parking on Main Street would be personally responsible if it were damaged, but when customers cars are left on Brian s lot over night and it gets damaged, his liability would have to cover it. He does not charge a fee for over night storage of serviced vehicles. John Pagliaccio mentioned Main Street has a 2-hour parking limit. Mike Campanella re-stated that the code reads that the lights should be turned off after 11PM. Bill Kramer noted the code reads non-essential lights. Robert Heyden stated the lights are too bright and he doesn t need a light tester to tell him any different and he gets woken up by the bright lights. Since 1984, there has been a pole light, 6 in the air, on the driveway side at Bruce s automotive. Bruce Mitchell says it seems Brian has make attempts for a solution but not to the satisfaction of the neighbors and questioned whether he s looked into reflective lighting. Brian replied that unshielded wall packs are not allowed per VEA code. Anne Heyden spoke regarding the 7 neighboring individuals who have an opinion about this variance and there needs to be a balance. She cannot enjoy her back deck and is blinded when she pulls into her driveway. She noted that she helped EAFD thru her gate to get to Bruce s for the fire that was mentioned earlier in the hearing. She finished by stating neighbor relations are important. 4

5 Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any further questions or testimony. There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman, John Spooner closed the hearing at 7:03 PM for deliberations and findings. Chairman, Spooner called the meeting back into order at 7:17 PM and read the following findings for Bruce Wesbury for William Reuter at 804 Martin Drive: Martin Drive is in an R Zone and was built in The house is built on a bend in the road that has the appearance of a corner lot. 3. The request is for a 48 high fence on the East and South side of the lot. That runs the rear for the house and will be at least 3 off the sidewalk on Martin Drive. 4. The purpose of the fence is to contain two dogs that may be able to jump over an allowed 42 fence. 5. Invisible fencing was tried unsuccessfully at a prior residence. 6. Fencing product now comes in units of 4, 5, 6 and 8 so that a 42 fence would be costly. 7. The requested variance is the minimum variance required to meet the petitioners request and is not substantial. 8. This is a Type II action under SEQR. Mike Campanella made a motion to accept the proposed findings and to GRANT the variance request for a 4 fence in the front and side yard. The motion was seconded by John Pagliaccio with the vote as follows: Mike Campanella Yea Molly Flynn Yea John Spooner Yea John Pagliaccio Yea Chairman, Spooner called the meeting back into order at 8:02 PM to note that the case would be tabled because additional information is needed from the Village Attorney for interpretation of the code A motion was made by Mike Campanella to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 PM seconded by Molly Flynn with a unanimous vote to follow. Respectfully Submitted, Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals 5