ZBA06.24.2026packet (full text)

WEST SENECA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1300 Union Road, West Seneca, NY 14224 6:00 PM in the Community Center June 24, 2026 AGENDA Meeting # 2026-06 CALL TO ORDER OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of Meeting #2026-05 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2026-021 Request of Kimberly Hudson for property located at 3864 Clinton Street to allow for construction of a 6' high fence in front/side yard with 10' projection. (4' height permitted and no projection allowed) 2026-022 Request of Zachary Schutt property located at 29 Klas Ave. to allow for 14' by 14' parking area in frontyard. (No parking permitted in required frontyard) 2026-023 Request of John Keem property located at 136 Canterbury Trail to allow 0' separation with new deck. (Decks not permitted to connect to principle structure to pool) 2026-024 Request of Kathleen Pelow property located at 6 Barnsdale Ave. to allow for construction of 6' fence in front/side yard off existing 6' fence. ( 4' fence required in front/side yard) 2026-025 Request of Douglas Blanchard property located at 5 Robin Court to allow for construction of a detached garage with 13 '9"height to mid-span of roof. (12' height to mid-span allowed) 2026-026 Request of Robert Gretzler property located at 85 Bellwood Ave. to allow for construction of a 6' fence Page 1 of 54

in front/side yard. (4' height fence is permitted) 2026-027 Request of Thomas Culkin property located at 457 Mineral Springs Road to allow for construction of 6' high fence in front/side yard. (4' fence permitted in front/side yard) 2026-028 Request of Jeffrey and Vanessa Vitalo property located at 45 Sunnyside Drive to allow construction of a 6' fence in front/side yard. (4' fence permitted) 2026-029 Request of Natalie Reyes property located at 135 Cresthaven Drive to allow for construction of 6' fence in front/side yard. (4' fence permitted in front/side yard) ADJOURN Future meetings are held the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:00 pm Page 2 of 54

WEST SENECA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1300 Union Road, West Seneca, NY 14224 6:00 PM in the Community Center May 27, 2026 Start time: 6:01pm Call to Order • Present: o Chairperson Stephen Stachowski o Zoning Board Member Joette Tronolone o Zoning Board Member Amelia Greenan o Zoning Board Member Paul Lang o Zoning Board Member Edmund Bedient o ZBA Counsel Joseph Trapp o Code Enforcement Representative Doug Busse • Absent: o None noted Opening of Public Hearing Motioned by Tronolone, seconded by Lang, to Open Public Hearing. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Approval of Proofs of Publication Motioned by Greenan, seconded by Bedient, to Approve Proofs of Publication. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Approval of Minutes from previous meeting Motioned by Tronolone, seconded by Lang to approve April 2026 meeting minutes. Page 3 of 54

OLD BUSINESS Application 2025-047 — 137 Fernald Avenue — Front Yard Fence • Applicant request: Extend front yard fencing along a shared driveway; presented four alternatives: 1. Gas service line constraints near proposed posts 2. Preferred plan: extend fence 25 feet forward to match east-side fence; close across the front with a gate near porch stairs 3. Compromise: raised garden bed across the front for child boundary 4. Minimum: approve a 25-foot extension along driveway side for safety • Code Enforcement (Busse): Raised beds/landscape acceptable if not impacting drainage/ROW; backyard fencing 4'–6' permitted up to property lines; 3' separation applies to detached structures, not fences; gas line clearance is utility-company matter. • Board discussion: Backyard fence is a feasible, code-compliant alternative; applicant acknowledged after clarification. • Public comments: o Neighbor Angel Castor (135 Fernald Ave): snow management, driveway access, dog behavior concerns, aesthetics. o Neighbor Kimberly Wilkowski (135 Fernald): measurement disputes; dog safety concerns; submitted photos. • ZBA Counsel (Joseph Trapp): Recommended board discussion first; advised that if approval tied to ADA needs, consider a removal condition when the child no longer resides there; child’s ADA needs were not part of original application; brief executive session held for legal advice. AREA Variance Balancing Test 1. Undesirable change/detriment: Yes. Front-yard fence impacts neighborhood character, shared driveway operations, winter snow storage; aesthetic concerns. 2. Feasible alternatives: Yes. Backyard fence fully permitted and feasible; cost concerns do not negate availability. 3. Substantiality: Yes. Front-yard fencing is prohibited; extending a 25-foot segment and potentially closing the front is substantial relative to the ordinance. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impacts: Possible impacts to driveway maneuverability and snow management; utility separations are outside town regulation. 5. Self-created hardship: Yes. Preference for front-yard containment; rear-yard fencing exists as a compliant option. Motioned by Stachowski, seconded by Lang to deny front yard fence. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Result: Area variance denied. Page 4 of 54

NEW BUSINESS Application 2026-015 - 291 North Avenue — Side Yard Fence Projection • Applicant: Bernard Tabalski, owner. • Request: Construct a six-foot fence in front/side yard with 15' projection past the house; replace existing chain-link with vinyl for privacy; double-wide lot; hedges currently in front. • Supporting documents: Letters from 302, 285, 298, 305 North Avenue; 305 (Lisa Neary) most affected shares fence line. • Department comments: o Code Enforcement: Double-wide lot; existing fence; ~8' tall shrubbery in front blocks side view; no issue with application. o Town Attorney: No comment recorded. AREA Variance Balancing Test 1. Undesirable change/detriment: No. Matches neighborhood aesthetic; supported by neighbors; screening by tall shrubbery. 2. Feasible alternatives: Existing chain-link could remain but does not provide desired privacy. 3. Substantiality: Not substantial in context; modest projection with existing screening and neighbor support. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impact: No known adverse impacts noted. 5. Self-created hardship: Yes, desire for privacy, but not determinative. Motioned by Tronolone, seconded by Greenan to approve construction of 6” fence. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Application 2026-016 - NLE Charging LLC — 705 Orchard Park Road — EV Charging Station Canopy and Site Setbacks • Applicant representative: Garrett Steiner (Boulder Engineering) • Location: 0.14-acre parcel between Mobil and Wendy’s • Project: Ten EV charging spaces served by five stations under a canopy; drive aisle; transformer/equipment space; curb cut reconstruction to DOT standards; stormwater via underground infiltration. • Zoning: C1 (Commercial) • Variances requested: 1. Pavement setback: 10' required; request 3' (south), 4' (north), 6.6' (east) 2. Front yard setback: 40' required; request 6.6' 3. Side yard setback: 5' required; request 0' for canopy Page 5 of 54

• Counsel (Trapp): Discuss together but make separate written findings; condition approval on use-specific to EV charging to avoid variances applying to different future uses; Type II SEQR confirmed. • Applicant: Small, unusual lot necessitates variances; other development would likely need similar relief. • Public comment: None. AREA Variance Balancing Tests (separate for each variance) 1. Pavement Setback (10' to 3'/4'/6.6') • Neighborhood character: No negative impact; commercial context between two businesses. • Feasible alternatives: No; lot size and economic feasibility necessitate requested setbacks. • Substantiality: Not substantial in context of commercial corridor. • Adverse impact: None anticipated; drainage addressed at site plan. • Self-created: Partially; unique lot constraints justify plan. 2. Front Yard Setback (40' to 6.6') • Neighborhood character: No negative impact given commercial surroundings. • Feasible alternatives: No; only viable plan for economic feasibility on small lot. • Substantiality: Numerically substantial, but context reduces significance. • Adverse impact: None foreseen. • Self-created: Yes, tempered by lot’s severe limitations. 3. Side Yard Setback (5' to 0' for canopy) • Neighborhood character: No negative impact (commercial). • Feasible alternatives: No; setback required to achieve feasible design on small lot. • Substantiality: 100% variance; not substantial in this specific commercial context and use. • Adverse impact: None anticipated; addressed at site plan approval. • Self-created: Yes, but unique lot circumstances necessitate approach. Motioned by Stachowski, seconded by Green to approve EV charging station canopy and setbacks. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Application 2026-017 - 48 Greenspring Court — Corner Lot Fence Projection Request: Increase fence height from 4' to 6'. Page 6 of 54

• Applicant: Michael Klein • Request: Six-foot fence in front side yard of corner lot with 41' projection past house. • Applicant statement: Corner lot has two front yards by code; needs privacy and safe space. • Code Enforcement: No issues; common request for corner lots. • Public comment: None. • Neighbor input: Letters of support from 43, 44, 47, 51, 63, and 67 Green Spring Court; no refusals. AREA Variance Balancing Test 1. Undesirable change/detriment: No. Vinyl privacy fences are common; adds curb appeal and privacy. 2. Feasible alternatives: Yes; keep existing chain-link, but it does not provide desired privacy. 3. Substantiality: No. Increase from 4' to 6' not considered substantial. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impact: No; expected to add value. 5. Self-created hardship: Yes, but not determinative. Motioned by Greenan, seconded by Lang to approve corner lot fence. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Application 2026-018 - 187 High View — Detached Garage Height • Applicant: Vincent Caruana • Request: Pole barn constructed at 14' to mid-span (2' over 12' permitted); seeks variance for as-built height. • Applicant statement: Followed permits; contractor error and ground pitch caused discrepancy. • Code Enforcement: Original plans compliant; contractor error; received an anonymous complaint during construction without address. • Public comment: None. • Neighbor input: Letters of support from 94 Tree Haven, 185 Highview, 90 Tree Haven, 210 Highview; neighbor at 197 High View reportedly unhappy but moving. • Board discussion: Precedent concerns (Tronolone); counsel advised decision should be irrespective of the structure already being built. AREA Variance Balancing Test 1. Undesirable change/detriment: No. Two-foot difference on a backyard structure with neighbor support; not altering character. 2. Feasible alternatives: Yes. Build to code-compliant height as intended. 3. Substantiality: No. Two-foot variance considered modest for this context. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impact: No. Not affecting sight lines or causing adverse effects. Page 7 of 54

5. Self-created hardship: Yes. Contractor error; still self-created but not determinative. Motioned by Stachowski, seconded by Bedient to approve garage height. Ayes: 4 Noes: 1 Application 2026-019 — 184 Manhasset Street — Allow Chickens in R-50 Zoning (USE Variance) • Applicant: Kylie Hussey, owner • Request: Use variance to keep chickens; homeschooling educational project (animal care, food systems, gardening, sustainable living) • Neighbor outreach entered into record: 180 Manhasset; 189 Chamberlain; 206 Kirkwood; 253 Kirkwood; 257 Kirkwood; 209 Chamberlain; 219 Kirkwood; 200 Kirkwood; 160 Columbia; one residence declined due to in-home nurse; one non-homeowner declined; 212 rental did not answer; note of a non-resident signature flagged. • Code/legal background: o Code Enforcement (Busse): Prior practice required use variance; code amended in 2025 to allow chickens in certain districts (e.g., R-100A) with criteria; current zoning governs where permitted by right. o Counsel (Trapp): Explained NYS distinction between use and area variances; use variances require strict 4-part test; area variances use 5-factor balancing; legal advice to board; applicants should obtain own counsel. o Board history: Past difficulty applying use test to chickens prompted legislative review; no known lawsuits challenging old approvals; typical 30-day challenge window; prior approvals may remain until chickens no longer on property per town/legal understanding (details not fully confirmed). • Board discussion: Financial documentation typically required for “reasonable return”; counsel suggested considering other criteria first given educational nature; hardship appears not unique to property; restrictions apply broadly across neighborhood; mention of Erie BOCES chickens nearby. USE Variance Balancing Test (four required elements) 1. Reasonable return: Property can realize reasonable return as a single-family residence; applicant’s non-commercial intent does not meet financial hardship standard. 2. Hardship unique to property: Not unique; limitations on chickens apply broadly to the zoning district; personal homeschooling needs are not property-based hardship. 3. No alteration of neighborhood character: While current impact may be minimal, potential alteration noted; still must meet all four criteria. 4. Hardship not self-created: Hardship is self-created by desire to maintain a non-permitted use. Motioned by Lang, seconded by Tronolone to deny chickens in R-50 zoning. Page 8 of 54

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Result: Use variance denied. Application 2026-020 Agenda Item: Patricia McGuire — 298 Kirkwood Drive — Front Porch Setback • Request: Front porch with a 13' front setback where 30' required; small resting spot; letters of support from seven neighbors. • Code Enforcement (Busse): House is preexisting nonconforming; any porch requires variance due to original placement. AREA Variance Balancing Test 1. Undesirable change/detriment: No. Residential porch consistent with neighborhood; adds curb appeal. 2. Feasible alternatives: No. Nonconforming placement necessitates variance for any functional porch. 3. Substantiality: Yes numerically; practical impact reduced by existing nonconformity. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impact: No. 5. Self-created hardship: Partially self-created desire, but largely due to historic nonconformity. Motioned by Tronolone, seconded by Lang to approve front porch setback. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Adjournment Motioned by Greenan, seconded by Bedient, to adjourn the meeting. Meeting ended 8:11pm Page 9 of 54

Page 10 of 54

Page 11 of 54

Page 12 of 54

Page 13 of 54

Page 14 of 54

Page 15 of 54

Page 16 of 54

Page 17 of 54

Page 18 of 54

Page 19 of 54

Page 20 of 54

Page 21 of 54

Page 22 of 54

Page 23 of 54

Page 24 of 54

Page 25 of 54

Page 26 of 54

Page 27 of 54

Page 28 of 54

Page 29 of 54

Page 30 of 54

Page 31 of 54

Page 32 of 54

Page 33 of 54

Page 34 of 54

Page 35 of 54

Page 36 of 54

Page 37 of 54

Page 38 of 54

Page 39 of 54

Page 40 of 54

Page 41 of 54

Page 42 of 54

Page 43 of 54

Page 44 of 54

Page 45 of 54

Page 46 of 54

Page 47 of 54

Page 48 of 54

Page 49 of 54

Page 50 of 54

Page 51 of 54

Page 52 of 54

Page 53 of 54

Page 54 of 54