No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-07J t � TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 7, 1987 • Zoning Board of Appeals met 'July 7, 1987 w /members J. Baker, C. Hatfield, Chr. P. Brellochs, A. Everett, N. LaMotte, & Z.O. H. Slater present. Also present: T. Thomas, J. Metzger, E. Savage, K. Welch, D. & P. Johnson, H. Case, D. & B. Armstrong, R. &. B. Hollenbeck, C. H, B, & B. McGory, T. Clark, D. Hanson, J. Wright,.B. Cornelius, W. & B. Marrion, & C. Cotterill. HEARING I Public hearing to consider application of Timothy J. Thomas to erect and establish a saw mill business at or about 9 Chaffee Rd. in Town of Dryden & is requesting variance to section 701 of Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance, T. Thomas present.- P. Brellochs read applicants response to appeals form - unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties - Land is already owned by Thomas family, is surrounded on three sides by other.property owned by Thomas, & is accessable by Chaffee Rd. Operation of saw mill is not specified use in that zone. T. Thomas felt type of saw mill he proposed fit into farm style community, & explained mill would only run a few hours a day, depending on number of orders. Most work to be done by hand, such as debarking; much of waste could be used (ie slabs burned as firewood, sawdust for their horses, & bark chips for landscaping). Would be very small operation, w /only two or three truck delivery of logs per month. Presently operating from Homer. Described land, proposed building, topography, & visibility from Rte 38 (yes in one direction, • no in the other). D. Armstrong, D. Johnson, D. Chaffee, & B. Marion (area residents) opposed application. Two petitions submitted (w /approx. 45 signatures) opposing application were also submitted. Main objections were noise, traffic safety, and visual effect. Hearing closed. HEARING II Public hearing to consider application of Pepsi -Cola Bottling Co. of 2070 Upper Lake St. Elmira, N.Y. to erect warehouse & light manufacturing facility at or about 473 North St., in Town of Dryden & is requesting variance to sec. 801 of Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance. J. Metzger present representing Pepsi-Cola - Stated needed something closer to Ithaca & Cortland area. Building to be metal w /overhead doors, 18' high, to set approx 400' off road; basically would use facility to assemble, repair, rehabilitate vending machines; probably be 5 route trucks & 2 transport trucks per day; hours from 7 :00 AM to 6:00 PM, 5 days per week, no site limitations, 2 employees at facility; trucks kept inside at night; no outside storage, no security lighting or fencing; all major truck repair to be done in Elmira. Z.O. stated property in MA zone was designed for large volume operations & therefore not feasible for smaller businesses. Trying to get Planning Board • to react and make more MA zones available. Hearing closed. I ., - 2 - HEARING III Public hearing to consider application of Edward Savage of 939 Dryden. Rd • to establish & operate machine parts manufacturing business at his private residence, and is requesting variance to section 1001 of Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance. E. Savage present -Read list of conditions of operations he'd specified (on file). Also stated business would be part -time enterprise, conducted primarily by phone or mail, & there would be no visual identification of his business, no walk -in customers, and no noise would-be generated. Chr. Brellochs read letter from A. Lecoq - 935 Dryden Rd opposing variance request mainly because of noise (letter on file). H. Case - 953 Dryden Rd - stated concern for traffic & parking..Mr. Savage reassured him there would be no traffic, it was mail order business. C. Pollock - 940 Dryden Rd - Stated he had no objections whatsoever. Hearing closed. HEARING IV Public hearing to consider application of Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Welch of 2215 Dryden Rd in Town of Dryden to establish a second residence, in form of mobile home, & is requesting variance to resolution #178 -1986 to section • 801 item 13 of Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance. K. Welch present - Explained his family would live in trailer & would rent house; lot was already set up for mobile home w /separate septic systems for each residence; Electric, water & septic had been inspected & everything was up to date; Had purchased property under assumption mobile homes were allowed in area because of two other trailers 300 yds each side of his & there had been other trailers on his lot prior to his; Trailer is presently being stored, unoccupied, as per letter of authority given by Z.O. June 4, 1987, until either trailer issue resolved or came to variance hearing; Had originally purchased trailer to move up North, but after selling their dairy & purchasing mobile home, deal up North fell through & had no place for trailer then; purchased this lot because already set up for trailer & rental property with separate systems. .Feels his case is unique since he wasn't creating anything new. Stated he'd cleaned property up considerably since purchase. A. Everett - Questioned how Zoning Board stood w /resolution on trailers in Dryden, expressed concern that Zoning Board may be inundated w /such requests, & was this the proper Board to make such decisions? Z.O. stated that in his opinion, request should.be handled same as any other application for variance for an unallowed use. It just happened that this use had gotten more publicity than others. Chr. Brellochs stated he agreed there were special circumstances, but that Board must take into account that legal opinion maybe needed as to whether • they had legal authority to rule on something Town Board had categorically vacated (placement of mobile homes). Mrs. Welch stated Atty. Perkins had said at Town meeting a variance request would be proper approach to take. I - 3 - Z.O. stated that was true. He was on committee. • J. Wright - 2210 Dryden Rd - said she was against any kind of zoning, but since it was in effect, it should be followed & not changed by variances. Chr. Brellochs said there were variety of reasons for variance requests, & zoning appeals process was to help interpret situations where there may be unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties due to ordinance. Burden of proof as to legitimacy of appeals request was on part of applicant, & it was concern of Board to interpret ordinance fairly. Z. 0. stated Welch's had followed proper route in applying for variance. J. Wright said she'd never been involved in zoning before & didn't understand how variance could be granted simply because somebody stated it would be a hardship if variance wasn't granted because he couldn't afford anything else. She suggested perhaps they could move to a place land was cheaper and trailers were allowed, and questioned Mr. Welch's occupation. K. Welch stated he hauled cattle and cut logs & didn't know people over in Spencer ( as she suggested) and couldn't make any money driving that distance everyday. He hadn't seen mobile home resolution until after his land purchase and didn't know this would cause any friction. B. Cornelius - Had sold property to Welch a couple of months ago - Stated he'd owned property since 1976 or 1977 & he'd had trailer there off & on a number of years ago. He'd recently put in second septic system & electric pole & everything had been approved by Health Dept. He'd been paying taxes • on improved property and Welch was not creating anything new or different. General discussion as to length.of time since there had been trailer on property. Z.O. stated that was immaterial because it had been over one year since a trailer had been on property. General discussion of resolution by Town Board, placement of mobile homes, monetary hardships, and areas where mobile homes would.or would not be allowed. C. Cotterill said no -one could answer question where mobile homes would be allowed because no decision had been made, and answer would only b4speculative. B. Cornelius questioned grandfather clause. C. Cotterill stated should be careful of wording such as grandfather clause because anything that 'is . existing -- can be=.grandfather.ed _ in,...but local ordinance states anything that has been removed for one year or more is no longer an existing use. Any new zoning can not remove what is currently there. N. LaMotte questioned if Town atty. had offered any comments regarding recent Supreme Court decision on zoning compensation for denying individual rights. C. Cotterill thought more specifics would be necessary before ruling could is be made. A. Everett questioned Mr. Cotterill as to whether Zoning Board was proper Board to review mobile home placement requests until ordinance was resolved. • • y - 4 - C. Cotterill said Zoning Ordinance should be enforced as written & if anything was not an allowed use, Zoning Board should make decision. Hearing closed. BOARD MOVED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION 9:35 PM. ALL HEARINGS REOPENED 11:15 PM. DECISIONS: HEARING I (Thomas) A. Everett motion to deny variance request. Seconded by J. Baker. No discussion. VOTE 3 YES (Everett, Baker, Brellochs) variance DENIED 2 NO (Hatfield, LaMotte) HEARING II (Pepsi Cola) N. LaMotte motion to grant variance. Seconded by J. Baker w /fo.11owing stipulation. 1. Light manufacturing facility be limited to assembly, repair, & rehabilitation of vending machines. Discussion: N. LaMotte agreed to ammended motion w /stipulation. VOTE 3 YES (LaMotte, Baker, Hatfield) variance G FD 2 NO (Everett, Brellochs) w stipulation HEARING III (Savage) J. Baker motion to.grant variance w /stipulations as stated in proposal (Conditions of Operation): 1. With the possible exception of a mailbox (and only if required by the Post Ofice), no sign or other device which identifies the business will be displayed on the premises. 2. Business will be contained entirely within the existing residential buildings. No other additional structures pertaining to the business will be erected. 3. No odors, noise, vibration or glare offensive to the community will be generated. . 4. No manufacturing processes that are noxious, offensive or hazardous to the health, safety or general welfare of the community will be utilized. 5. The business will not use materials that will create an explosion. or special fire hazard. 6. No liquid wastes or effluents will be produced or discharged on the premises. 7. No trash, rubbish or junk, other than that normally left for weekly garbage pickup, will be evident. 8. Other than UPS service & occasional delivery of materials, foot & vehicle traffic relating to the business will be insignificant. Additional • r1 U - 5 - parking and access are not required. 9. The business will be operated by the owner. Employees will not be hired. 10. Future sale of the property will be as a residence. The requested non - conforming use need not be conveyed to any future buyer. Seconded by N. LaMotte. No further discussion. VOTE HEARING IV ALL YES (Welch) variance GRANTED w /stipulation N. LaMotte motion to grant variance. Seconded by C. Hatfield. No discussion. VOTE 3 YES (LaMotte, Hatfield, Baker) 2 NO (Everett, Brellochs) MEETING ADJOURNED 11:45 PM. variance GRANTED Secretary,