Depew zoning board tables variance request to convert garage at 125 Meadowlawn Road into accessory unit

Acting Chairman Patrick Delaney and the Village of Depew Zoning Board of Appeals on July 24 voted to table an application seeking variances to convert the second story of an existing three-bay garage at 125 Meadowlawn Road into an accessory dwelling unit. The applicant’s representative asked for time to revise the application after board members and nearby residents raised legal and neighborhood concerns.

The matter was introduced in a legal notice read at the start of the meeting: "the application of Ryan Renshaw and Shaheen and Associates, on behalf of Caleb Choudhury for the property located at 125 Meadowlawn Road... They are requesting 2 variances," including relief under chapter 260 of the village code for an accessory housing unit and for R-2 dimensional requirements. Ryan Renshaw, identifying himself as a senior associate with Shenney Associates, told the board he planned to convert the upper story of the existing garage into a family accessory bedroom/unit and was "asking for those 2 zone variances" so he could apply for local building permits.

Why it matters: Board members and legal counsel concluded the proposed conversion may change the classification of the property from a single- or two-family use to a multiple-dwelling use under the village code, which would trigger substantially different lot, yard and parking standards. Neighbors said approving the request as presented could increase overcrowding, worsen parking and snow-removal problems, and would be difficult to enforce if the property later converted to non-family rental use.

Board concerns and legal interpretation

Legal counsel and board members reviewed the code language and cited R-2 dimensional standards that would apply if the structure is considered a multiple dwelling rather than an accessory unit. The board noted the application as presented did not address several dimensional minimums for an R-2 multi-family property. The transcript records the following shortfalls called out by the board: - Minimum lot width required: 100 feet for multi-family; existing 55 feet (applicant requested a 5-foot lot-width variance relative to another code citation). - Minimum lot depth required: 150 feet required; existing 128 feet. - Minimum front yard required: 30 feet required; existing ~25 feet. - Minimum rear yard required: 30 feet required; existing ~3 feet. - Minimum acreage: 1.0 acre required for the multi-family standard; existing ~0.16 acres. - Parking: an R-2 multiple dwelling would require six parking spaces; the existing driveway width was described as insufficient to allow cars to pass without blocking each other.

Board members also emphasized the code definition distinction between an "auxiliary housing unit" (described in the village code as "a room or group of rooms within a detached single-family dwelling") and a detached accessory structure that would likely be treated as a separate dwelling. Legal counsel suggested the applicant either amend the request to address the broader area variances identified by code enforcement or return with a revised application.

Neighborhood comments

Four neighbors who live on or near Meadowlawn Road spoke at the hearing and described persistent property-maintenance and parking problems at 125 Meadowlawn. Penelope Moore, who said she lives at 146 Meadowlawn across the street, told the board, "There is no snow issue" in response to one line of questioning about where snow would be placed, and then described the property as poorly maintained. Norman Petrovsky, a long-time nearby resident, said the owner was in it "strictly in it for the money" and questioned the suitability of adding more rental units. Joanna Viverto of 176 Meadowlawn said, "It's a money grab," and urged the board to preserve the single- and two-family character of the street. Sharon Fair, another neighbor, described recent winters when tenants at the property "could not get their cars out," reinforcing residents' concerns about parking and snow removal.

Applicant response and board action

Renshaw described the planned work: converting the three-bay garage to include a stair accessing a second-story unit, relocating one door, and upgrading electrical, plumbing and HVAC. He said sanitary plumbing would tie into the main house sewer. He also suggested the block contains other similar garages that could be considered for zoning changes in the future, and asked the board to consider broader zoning review outside this single application.

After discussion, the applicant requested the board table the matter to allow time to revise the submission and address the additional area variances identified by staff. Member Menard moved to table the variance; Member Galvin seconded. Roll call votes were recorded as follows: Member Overholt — yes; Member Gallivan (Galvin in later roll call) — yes; Member Menard — yes; Member Yarborough — yes; Acting Chairman Patrick Delaney — yes. The board therefore tabled the application. The board then voted to close the hearing.

What happens next

The applicant indicated he will confer with the owner and may return with a revised application addressing the additional area variances and the board's legal concerns. Neighbors were told the village has an enforcement and complaint process for property maintenance issues should they wish to file complaints with code enforcement. The board did not make a final decision on any variance at this meeting; the file remains open and the item will return if and when the applicant submits a revised application.