Text · page 8 of 40
Read the whole document on one page (all 40 pages, each with its own heading)
WEST SENECA COMMUNITY CENTER Zoning Board of Appeals 1300 Union Road Minutes #2025-11 West Seneca, NY 14224 December 3, 2025 Building Department to address the complaint to the satisfaction of the Building Department 3) The premises would be cleaned up after live music events by the following day Mr. Busse stated he has monitored the sound level with other property owners and would be willing to do this with the applicant. Mr. Hopkins stated that would be acceptable. Chairperson Hicks withdrew her motion to table the item. Mr. Bedient withdrew his second. Chairperson Hicks referred to neighbor complaints including litter and trespassing, noting the litter complaint was addressed, and stated she has concerns about guest behavior that were mentioned, including public urination among other bad consequences of having live music, and asked for a guarantee of security in the parking lot. Mr. Hopkins stated that requiring an employee on the premises to monitor the parking lot is acceptable. Chairperson Hicks stated that, in her opinion, contacting the police department would be appropriate in such instances and noted the area is open without many fences. Mr. Hopkins stated fencing is an acceptable condition and reiterated that the applicant wants to be a good neighbor. Chairperson Hicks stated that she understands the applicant owns other property and is interested in living there at some point. Mr. Hopkins stated there was going to be a residential subdivision, but this could not go forward because of existing wetlands. Ms. Greenan requested the neighbors to focus on the 5 concessions. Mr. Owczarczyk asked if the Zoning Board would have denied the original variance if the neighbors had voiced opposition at that time. Further, the applicant did not approach the neighbors to communicate their plans. Ms. Greenan asked what can be done to make the situation better and would the concessions be amenable. Mr. Ozczarczyk stated he would be diligent about reporting incidents to the Police Department. Mr. Bedient stated he looks forward to seeing how the events go now that everyone is aware of the situation. Mr. Owczarczyk reiterated that in his opinion, there would not be problems if the applicant had made the neighbors aware of the events and their plans for the property. Ms. Greenan listed the 5 conditions and asked Mr. Owczarczyk for his comments: 1) the applicant will have sound monitoring equipment and records will be kept accordingly - This makes sense. 2) the applicant will work with the Building Department (Code Enforcement Office) to resolve any noise complaints; 3) the applicant is committed to expeditious cleanup 4) Code Enforcement will measure the sound 5) an employee will be on the premises in the parking lot to monitor behavior - No, this is not enough and would like a physical barrier to stop patrons from entering private properties. Chairperson Hicks offered the possibility of orange snow fencing or permanent fencing. Mr. Owczarczyk stated he would need to ask his neighbors. Ms. Greenan again asked if the conditions were amenable, and she desired to make a determination at this meeting. Chairperson Hicks stated the Zoning Board does not negotiate with neighbors, they make a decision based on information. The point was made that it is not possible to go back and second guess how the neighbors would have responded when the original variance was granted. Mr. Hopkins stated the conditions Ms. Greenan listed are acceptable and stated the Zoning Board rules based on statutory criteria regardless of the number of people in the room. In his opinion, the 6 Page 8 of 40