William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Catherine Wood, Secretary

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 19 th day of January, 2012 PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman Absent: Mike Campanella Vice Chairman Frank Wilton Mary (Molly) Flynn John Pagliaccio ALSO PRESENT: William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Catherine Wood, Secretary Gregory K. Schneider RA, Aurora Architectural Design P.C. 1051 Olean Road East Aurora, NY 14052 Ray and Marsha Niceforo 803 East Fillmore Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052 Greg and Wendy Egloff 986 Center Street East Aurora, NY 14052 Steve Giblin 772 East Fillmore Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Ray and Marsha Niceforo 803 East Fillmore Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052 Front porch addition and renovations at 803 East Fillmore Avenue Chairman, John Spooner called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM and introduced (4) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which constitutes a quorum. Mr. Spooner announced the order of events that evening as hearing the presentation of Ray and Marsha Niceforo first, then adjourn that hearing, followed by hearing the Egloff s and another adjournment for deliberations in order to make a decision. John Pagliaccio made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing that took place on December 8, 2011. The motion was seconded by Molly Flynn with the vote as follows: John Spooner Yea John Pagliaccio Yea Michael Campanella Yea Molly Flynn Yea Chairman, John Spooner asked Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer to read aloud the following: 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated December 22, 2011 stating that the application for a covered front porch at 803 East Fillmore Avenue was denied

due to failure to meet the required setbacks as stated in East Aurora Village Code Sections 285-17D(1) and 285-17D(2). The denial letter to be made part of the record. 2. The letter of appeal from Gregory Schneider of Aurora Architectural Design PC listing the grounds for the variance request. The appeal letter to be made part of the record. Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications and Bill Kramer responded that we do have the letter from Mr. Schneider explaining the setbacks for two of the neighboring residences and also a letter from a neighbor, Alva Jean Muther. Mr. Kramer proceeded to read aloud the letter from Alva Jean Muther of 790 East Fillmore Ave. Letter to be made part of the record. At this time Chairman, Spooner asked Mr. Schneider to present his case as to why he cannot comply with the Village Code for the side yard and front yard setbacks. Mr. Schneider began by stating that the proposed project is to restore and enhance the existing front porch where the foundation is still in place, to make the porch larger and tie it into the architecture of the existing building. Mr. Schneider said that some of the things they were planning on doing as part of this project are to reuse a lot of the stone from the existing foundation system and also to keep in place the existing signature entrance, this being the steps which are presently linked by the two stone masonry walls. The existing foundation is 14 from the right of way line. The goal is to use the front porch and main entrance to the house like it was originally intended to be. Mr. Schneider explained that right now, most of the access to the house is from the driveway and a narrow concrete step. Mr. Schneider continued to say that approaching from the front, the goal is to make the structure look good, protect it and make it usable. He said that right now if you go in the front door, you go right into the Niceforo s living room, which would be made more functional by having a small vestibule. They wish to keep the existing porch line in tact. Another objective is to promote the pedestrian traffic around the house and into the backyard as opposed to through the driveway. In order to achieve this objective, this (Mr. Schneider points to diagram) is the only portion of the proposed front porch that actually extends slightly in front of the existing foundation, and also extends slightly into the 10 foot existing side yard set back. Mr. Schneider said in order to achieve this, he had to look into tying the architecture in without blocking second story windows or creating a snow funnel onto those windows. He also said there were a couple unique considerations, including that East Fillmore is quite a narrow street but that it has a 66 foot right of way, just as larger streets in the village, such as Oakwood. Mr. Schneider said that this right of way line actually ends up in the middle of the Niceforo s front yard, and he provided his calculation based on the 66 foot code and the Niceforo s lot depth measurement of 150 feet with the 20% requirement. The house was built in 1906 and the zoning code was not established until on or about 1960, thus the existing structure is already non-conforming. Mr. Schneider also indicated that the proposed front porch steps and setbacks are very comparable to other properties on the street as noted in his letter dated January 16th, and he handed photographs over for the zoning board members to pass around. There are two vacant lots on both sides of the property; one owned by the Niceforo s and the other by their neighbor. The Niceforo s have far exceeded the lot width on one side and fall short on the other side. Per Mr. Schneider s illustration, there is still plenty of green space in front of the house. Mr. Schneider feels this will make a positive change, consistent with the neighborhood, and that people will have positive feelings about what has been achieved. Mr. Schneider concluded that the benefit of

having a front porch cannot be achieved without a variance because of the non-conforming setbacks, and that this difficulty is not self-created because of the home that existed in 1906 with a partial front porch on it. Chairman, Spooner then called Mr. Schneider up to the bench so he might clarify the exact location on the diagram of the existing steps on the existing front porch. Board member Molly Flynn asked Mr. Schneider if he would or would not be using the same steps. Mr. Schneider responded that the steps are concrete and in slight disrepair, so they may be rebuilt, but the intention is to use the same historic location of the steps and sidewalk. Chairman, Spooner questioned again, saying the existing porch has a depth of 10 per the illustration, however the next illustration shows a depth of 11 ; Chairman, Spooner wished to know if Mr. Schneider is adding to the existing foundation. Mr. Schneider said that yes, the front line of the existing porch line is moving forward a foot, but the front of steps are staying in the same location. Chairman, Spooner clarified that the existing wall will be taken down and then reused, to which Mr. Schneider confirmed. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella then asked Mr. Schneider if he would be cantilevering the old foundation out an extra foot. Mr. Schneider said they would probably rebuild the foundation in total, so they may cantilever, but more likely they want to move the stone wall out in a manner that is even with the face in order to get the classic look of the stone wall supporting the porch. The stone that is on the porch matches the stone that is on the side of the house. Member John Pagliaccio then asked if the porch floor height would be the same that it is presently, to which Mr. Schneider positively confirmed. Member Pagliaccio also sought confirmation that the variance would not increase as a result of the steps, to which Mr. Schneider agreed. Code enforcement officer Bill Kramer said that the steps are not included in the variance anyway. Greg Schneider said they would build the foundation out to the 14 level, but the porch is back another three feet from that, and the area they are projecting is closer to the street. Chairman, Spooner asked if the roof was covering the steps, and Mr. Schneider said yes. Bill Kramer interjected that there was no post however, down to the ground on that step. Mr. Schneider responded that no, it s cantilevered. He further explained by pointing to the front double column on the illustration that is seen on each side of the porch step, and pointed out a square that is actually a cantilevered bracket. Mr. Schneider said that they are looking at projecting the roof out to get protection over the steps. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella and Bill Kramer responded that it was not a problem and not part of the variance. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella asked which side of the house the Niceforo s owned the lot, to which Chairman, Spooner and Greg Schneider verified the west side, with Bill Kramer adding that it was the side towards Pine Street. John Pagliaccio then asked how tall the gazebo is intended to be as it was not shown in the plans. Mr. Schneider answered that it could be 15 to the peak of it. Molly Flynn said it looked like the top is in line with the eve of the roofline, so as not to block the windows. Mr. Schneider conferred that the reasoning was both to not block the windows and also to not have any water channel around there. Bill Kramer asked if there was a reason they needed a gazebo other than a porch straight across, and Chairman, Spooner added, Other than aesthetics? Greg Schneider said they were trying to attain more usability for the porch, for it to be functional, and to have enough space to have a small gathering on the porch. He also pointed out that most of the other porches in the area that are as close to the street have the entire porch being close to the street, where as the plans for the Niceforo s show the majority of the porch set back more, with only the gazebo extending a bit further. Mr. Schneider went on to say he was trying to get the best project he could for the client with the best overall enhancement, including

working with the rooflines and the architecture. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella said that what the zoning board really needed to know was why the Niceforo s needed an extra two and a half feet on the side yard, and why they could not fit it into the required setbacks. Mr. Schneider replied that it primarily has to do with the geometry of the addition, and trying to get around here (Mr. Schneider points to illustration) to get some additional space. He said the two and half feet helps them to achieve that. He also explained that he could not push the gazebo further over in front of the window, as he would have to do without the additional two and a half feet of space. He additionally explained that he had to work with the roofline and get out around the chimney in the back. He added that taking into consideration the significant frontage they do have set back on the east side would hopefully help the case for being able to get a little bit closer on the west side. Marsha Niceforo then spoke up and added that they actually set up a table and chairs in the area in order to make sure they would have enough space to walk around comfortably, and that this proposal was the minimum size necessary to actually utilize the porch and make it functional. Ray Niceforo added that obviously this is going to be a major project and that if you undertake a major project you want to have the benefit of it. Chairman, Spooner then asked to read something to them and read aloud, Whether the benefit can be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant and concluded by stating that this is what the Zoning Board of Appeals has to face. Chairman, Spooner said the Niceforo s have to tell the board why they cannot do it some other way in order to be in compliance on the side yard. Molly Flynn replied that she thought Mrs. Niceforo addressed that as she said she needed room for the table. Mr. Schneider added that again, they cannot achieve this level of benefit without that setback. Mrs. Niceforo added that for them it was not about aesthetics only, but about usable space. She added that if you know their block, you would know they do a lot of entertaining and have a lot of people over, so for them to have enough space is important. She also said that it especially needed to be the right size since they were putting that much money into it. Chairman, Spooner asked if anyone had any other questions. John Pagliaccio then asked Bill Kramer if he had any idea what originally the previous non-conforming situation was on the setback on the house. Bill Kramer responded that it was done before the code, and that it was made non-conforming by the introduction of code. John Pagliaccio wanted to know if that was a fact. Mike Campanella added that the house was built in 1904 and the code didn t come until 1960. Bill Kramer added that there are no records of any variance being sought or any building permit for that porch, so he assumes that it was done before any codes. Mr. Pagliaccio asked Bill to clarify that what Bill is telling him is that there is no record of that non-conformance, to which Bill Kramer replied, Correct. Chairman, Spooner added that there wouldn t be. Mr. Pagliaccio said that there should have been something because the statement says it s an existing nonconforming situation. Bill Kramer explained that it is, but that it was made existing by the introduction of the code. John Pagliaccio said ok and that he would accept that, even though it can t factually be shown. Chairman, Spooner disagreed and felt it could be shown, explaining that you could show when the code was enacted and also show when the house was built. Chairman, Spooner looked for John Pagliaccio to agree, however Mr. Pagliaccio offered no official answer, in his opinion, but added that it was ok. Chairman, Spooner asked if anyone had any further questions. There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman, Spooner closed this portion of the meeting at 7:28 PM.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Wendy Egloff DBA Firefly Cupcakes 986 Center Street East Aurora, NY 14052 Awning sign variances for size and logo at 700 Main Street East Aurora, NY 14052 Chairman, John Spooner called the meeting to order at 7:29 PM for the hearing of Wendy Egloff, DBA Firefly Cupcakes. He announced that all of the introductions have been done and that all of the names & addresses of the individuals present have been recorded. Chairman, John Spooner asked Code Enforcement Officer, William Kramer to read aloud the following: 1. The denial letter from the Code Enforcement Officer dated December 22, 2011 stating that the application for an awning sign at 700 Main Street was denied due to failure to meet the requirements for size and logo as stated in East Aurora Village Sign Code Sections 209-7B(2) and 209-10A. The denial letter to be made part of the record. 2. The letter of appeal from Wendy R. Egloff, owner of Firefly Cupcakes, listing the grounds for the variance requests. The appeal letter to be made part of the record. Chairman, Spooner asked if there were any other communications and Bill Kramer responded that we have the letter from Richard and Daniel Rahn giving their approval. Bill Kramer confirmed that they are the landlord and business owners of Rahn Jewelers at 696 Main Street. Letter to be made part of the record. Chairman, Spooner directed attention to Wendy Egloff of Firefly Cupcakes, asking her to present her case at this time. Mrs. Egloff said that she didn t have too much to add in addition to her appeal letter dated December 22, 2011. She said that she feels this request is in line with some other businesses on Main, including recent businesses like Salut, that have a similar situation with the logo on the front of the awning. She said that she has a very small valence, and so it would be virtually impossible to put anything other than Firefly Cupcakes on there. She also said that it is important as a business owner to have a solid branding, which was a consideration for her. Mrs. Egloff explained that this awning is in fact replacing a retractable awning for Toy Loft that has been there for years. She also pointed out that Firefly Cupcakes would incorporate some outdoor seating, and that this awning would be able to afford some shade to the customers when the weather was nice, adding that it would create a nice ambience and tie the front of the store all together. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella then asked Wendy Egloff why she had to have more than forty square feet for her logo and sign. She responded that they had to get the right pitch so that the awning will come out far enough to cover where the tables and chairs are going to be. Mr. Campanella said that was not his question, explaining that the sign they are proposing is 55 square feet when the village only allows for forty square feet, saying that what they are asking for is basically a 20% increase in signage. Mr. Campanella asked the Egloffs why they needed

that increase, and why forty square feet of signage would not take care of their needs. Chairman, Spooner added that it had nothing to do with the size of the awning. Mrs. Egloff said she originally misunderstood, and answered the question again. She explained that the front of the building is a strange configuration with four posts, four center windows, a bay front door area, and then a large post in the center. She said that to have the logo look correct over the side of the building, it had to be centered over the front door, and that is what the space is. She added that when Kohler did the rendering that is the space that they wanted to cover directly over the front door, since there is no other signage. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella said that as he was looking at it, he wondered if the reason they needed the additional square footage was because the sign is not perpendicular to the street, but rather at an angle, so you look at it, it s actually a little shorter visually than if the sign were to be directly perpendicular. Mrs. Egloff responded, saying that very well may be the case. She added that her logo has an oval around it, and they actually removed that circle during designing so that the logo would fit appropriately in the space. John Pagliaccio asked if Kohler was aware of the forty square foot limit when they designed the awning, and Wendy Egloff responded that she could not speak for them. Molly Flynn asked Wendy Egloff if she thought that people would be able to see the sign easier if it was reduced to 40 rather than the requested 55, to which Mrs. Egloff responded no. She added that the general professional consensus of Kohler was that the signage on the awning should be one third of the total awning space, directly within the center third portion. She also added that Kohler did some other smaller drawings for them, and that the name and logo on those looked like a postage stamp in comparison because the awning is 29 wide. Chairman, Spooner asked where the remaining designs would be going. Mrs. Egloff said that they would be going on the windows. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella asked if it was to be the inside or the outside of the windows, and Mrs. Egloff responded that everything else would be outside the windows. However Bill Kramer corrected her, saying that the rest of the signage would be inside the windows. Bill Kramer explained that if they were on the outside of the windows, then they would have to be counted as additional square footage of signage. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella asked if they had thought about putting any other signage on the building to attract attention to it. Wendy Egloff replied that certainly she has. Mr. Campanella added that they are allowed to put a perpendicular sign up. Molly Flynn then asked how much room there was between the top of the awning and the windows, thinking there was only two or three feet. Wendy Egloff responded that it was not a lot of space. Molly Flynn concluded that a perpendicular sign could not really go there anyway, and Mrs. Egloff said that this conclusion was correct. Chairman, Spooner asked what was above the glass windows and underneath the awning since there was space there. Wendy Egloff said there was molding/trim around the windows, and brick facade that would have a huge hole in it once the old awning is removed. Mike Campanella asked which side of the street the building was on, and Mrs. Egloff responded that it was the side that receives the sun, so it was concluded that there was a reason an awning was needed anyway. Mrs. Egloff joked that they didn t want melted cupcakes, and mentioned that the sun was pretty brutal.

Chairman, Spooner asked if anyone had any further questions or if anyone else wished to speak for or against the issue. At this time, Mr. Greg Schneider of Aurora Architectural Design made a comment that in his opinion, the thirty degree angle of the awning would in fact reduce the visible square footage of the awning sign, close to the equivalence of a forty square foot perpendicular sign. John Pagliaccio then asked what the material for the awning was made of. Wendy Egloff responded that it was Sunbrella fabric, which is canvas and both weather and fade resistant. She also said it does not open and close, but is a permanent fixture with a galvanized steel frame. Chairman, Spooner asked if she had any plans for any lighting behind the awning, if it would show through. Mrs. Egloff replied that they had talked about putting two gooseneck lamps above there, but there was a significant amount of lighting already from the streetlamps, so it was not needed. She also added that she was trying to be very mindful of the people living in the apartments upstairs and that she believes even gooseneck lamps would bring additional light into the neighbor s apartment above. Chairman, Spooner noted that currently they would not be able to put any light underneath the awning anyway, to which Wendy Egloff agreed. Mike Campanella then said that he believed the awning would be opaque, and asked if it was going to be black; Wendy Egloff affirmed. Chairman, Spooner asked if anyone had any further questions. There being no further testimony, or questions from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman, Spooner closed the hearing at 7:44 PM for deliberations & findings of both hearings. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Ray and Marsha Niceforo 803 East Fillmore Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052 Front porch addition and renovations at 803 East Fillmore Avenue This portion of the meeting resumed at 8:00 PM with Chairman, Spooner reading the following findings for 803 East Fillmore Avenue: 1. 803 East Fillmore Avenue is in an R district and was built in 1906. 2. The existing front porch is 10 x 19.15 and is a legal non-conforming structure as is the house. 3. Proposed porch and gazebo will extend 12.75 from the east wall creating a side yard of 7.42 and extend 12.75 from the north wall creating a front yard of 12.55. The lot to the east of this house is a vacant lot.

4. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to make the porch usable space for table and chairs. 5. The set back of this porch is similar to other houses with porches on this street. 6. This proposed porch will not change the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties. 7. There were no objections from neighbors and there was one letter from 790 East Fillmore. 8. The proposed action has been considered under SEQR and has met the requirements of a Type II action. Continuing in open session, Chairman Spooner asked for a motion to accept or reject the proposed findings, and either grant or deny the variance. A motion was made by John Pagliaccio that the proposed findings be accepted and approved as the findings of the Board in this matter and that the variance be GRANTED, seconded by Molly Flynn with a unanimous vote to follow. 1/19/12 Variance GRANTED Upon leaving, the Niceforo s extended an invitation to their porch party, and said that they were going to have cupcakes. Chairman, Spooner then adjourned the meeting again at 8:02 PM. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Wendy Egloff DBA Firefly Cupcakes 986 Center Street East Aurora, NY 14052 Awning sign variances for size and logo at 700 Main Street East Aurora, NY 14052 Chairman, Spooner reopened the meeting at 8:25 PM. Vice Chairman, Mike Campanella made a motion to table the hearing for more discussion and more information, seconded by Molly Flynn, with a unanimous vote to follow.

A motion was made by Mike Campanella to close the meeting at 8:26 PM seconded by John Pagliaccio with a unanimous vote to follow. Respectfully Submitted, Catherine Wood, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals