Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Variance Canopy Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cheektowaga zoning board tables request to add canopy, covered parking at 67 Martinique Drive

2118450 · January 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Charles Yarrington requested variances to install an attached overhang canopy and a covered parking pad one foot from the side property line; board raised aesthetic and setback concerns and voted to table pending a site visit and revisions.

Charles Yarrington, the property owner at 67 Martinique Drive, asked the Cheektowaga Zoning Board to allow construction of an attached overhang canopy and a covered parking pad that would sit one foot from his side property line where the town’s zoning requires a larger side yard and a five-foot setback for parking.

The request would place an overhang canopy in the required side yard one foot from the property line; board members noted the local zoning requirement that the side yard be not less than 10 percent of lot width (approximately 6.5 feet in this case) and not exceed 10 feet. The applicant also proposed a covered parking pad one foot from the property line where the zoning code requires parking no closer than five feet.

Yarrington told the board the structure is intended for winter storage and to shelter a seasonal vehicle — a custom Chevrolet S-10 he described as driven only in good weather, about 1,500–2,000 miles a year, and worth about $100,000. He described the structure as a simple roofed shelter with steel roofing, white aluminum facing, four posts and no enclosing walls; the structure’s highest point at the house was described as about 95 inches, the lowest about 85 inches, which he said averages roughly 87 inches.

Board members and neighbors raised concerns about appearance, visibility from the street, and impacts on the neighborhood. One board member called the partially constructed structure “positively hideous” on the record; other members pressed for clearer drawings and asked the applicant to close visible gaps, add flashing and soffit where the roof extends beyond existing building elements, wrap visible posts in aluminum, and make the front/top portion move with the existing fence so the shelter looks like an addition rather than a freestanding carport. A resident raised concern about repeated vehicle trips across the lawn if the shelter is used frequently.

The applicant said the yard is already fenced (an 8-foot opening) and that much of the shelter would be inside the fence; he said he stores the truck off-site during winter months and would use the shelter mainly for short-term storage and to protect the vehicle from weather when not in use.

After questioning, board members said they wanted to see the site in person and requested a rendition showing final appearance. The board moved to table the application to allow a site visit and for the applicant to supply revised drawings and details addressing visibility and finishing measures. The motion to table passed; the board asked staff to coordinate a time for members to inspect the property before the next meeting.