Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies Cranesville Block request for above‑ground diesel tank, urges town board code change
Summary
The Cheektowaga Zoning Board of Appeals denied Cranesville Block Company’s request to keep an 8,000‑gallon above‑ground diesel tank on site and advised the company to seek a code amendment from the Town Board before reapplying.
The Cheektowaga Zoning Board of Appeals on June 18 denied a request from Cranesville Block Company to establish an 8,000‑gallon above‑ground diesel storage tank at its Cheektowaga facility.
Board members said the town’s zoning code presently bars above‑ground fuel tanks and that changing that rule is a matter for the Town Board, not the Zoning Board. Chairman Justin Young told the applicant that the proper route is to ask the Town Board to amend the zoning code or provide direction to the Zoning Board before the board could approve an above‑ground storage installation.
John Gilowitz, speaking for Cranesville Block Company, said the company had purchased a new 8,000‑gallon tank and placed it on site but had not installed piping. Gilowitz described concerns about a high local water table and prior problems with an underground tank, saying installing another buried tank at the site would be difficult and risky.
"With that water table there, with an underground tank, me personally, I think it's a bad idea," Gilowitz said, citing environmental and operational risks he had observed on prior removals.
Board members agreed with the applicant’s operational concerns but said their hands were tied by the town code. "It is the Town Board's job to change the code," Chairman Justin Young said. He and other board members said they had discussed the issue with the Town Supervisor and town counsel and that a formal change to the zoning regulations would be required before the Zoning Board could approve installations of that type.
The board voted to deny the application. The board suggested the applicant pursue the Town Board’s agenda, including committee review and possible code amendment; if the code changes, the applicant may return to the Zoning Board with a materially revised application.
The denial leaves the company with the option to seek a Town Board code amendment or to pursue alternative fueling arrangements that comply with current zoning.
Votes at the meeting were unanimous on the motion to deny; the board recorded aye votes from members present and denied the permit.
