Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheektowaga ZBA tables request to legalize side‑yard canopy and covered parking at 67 Martinique Drive
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals tabled Charles Yarrington’s request to retain an attached canopy and a covered parking pad that encroach into the required side yard, saying members want to inspect the site and see a clearer rendering before deciding.
The Town of Cheektowaga Zoning Board of Appeals on an unspecified date tabled an application by Charles Yarrington of 67 Martinique Drive to retain an attached overhang canopy and a covered parking pad that encroach into the required side yard.
The board’s members said they want to inspect the property in person and see clearer drawings or a rendition before making a final determination. The board discussed setting a site visit and returning the item to the next meeting; the board’s February meeting was mentioned during the session.
The applicant told the board the structure is intended primarily for winter storage and to shelter a seasonal custom vehicle he drives only in good weather. “It’s mostly winter storage and then in the summer I have a seasonal truck that I only drive in the summer that I would park under it to keep out of the weather,” Charles Yarrington said. He described the vehicle as a custom S‑10 and said the vehicle is costly and he built the cover to protect it. He also described planned exterior finishes: a steel roof with visible aluminum facing and a gutter.
The request as read into the record notes two zoning setbacks at issue: a roofed canopy and a covered parking pad located about 1 foot from the property line, where the board was told the local zoning standard calls for a minimum side‑yard open space equal to 10% (about 6.5 feet in this case) and a parking setback of 5 feet from the property line. The applicant and the board discussed measurements and reported roof heights (the applicant cited a highest point near the house of 95 inches and a lowest point about 85 inches; he summarized the typical visible height as about 87 inches).
Neighbors and the board questioned how visible the structure would be from the street and whether it would read as an addition or a roofed fence. One resident who identified himself as Maxwell Horner of 43 South Dudley Street told the board he thought the work “looks structurally sound” and would look better when finished. At least one speaker in the meeting described the current portion of the work as unattractive; that remark was not tied to a named speaker in the transcript.
The board voted to table the application so members could view the site and receive additional visual materials. The board asked the applicant to provide a clearer rendition showing how the canopy will sit relative to the existing fence and to consider closing or screening visible gaps so the structure “reads” like an addition rather than an exposed roof.
The board indicated the item will be revisited after a site visit and after the applicant submits the requested drawings and clarifications.
Votes and formal action: the board recorded a motion to table the application; the formal outcome was: tabled for further inspection and resubmission of drawings.
Next steps: the applicant and board staff will arrange a time for a site visit; the board asked for a rendering and details of how the canopy will be finished and how roof drainage will be handled.
