Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-14 i TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING SOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 14 , 1993 MEMBERS PRESENT : Chairwoman Anne Everett , Alan LAMotte and Charles Hanley . Chairwoman Anne Everett called to order a special meeting of the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals . The meeting was called to review , discuss and vote on the minutes of the January 51 t993 and the February 2 , 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals minutes . After review of the January 59II11993 minutes the following additions or corrections were noted : i . Rage 11 ( H . Slater ) , six foot depth CORRECTED TO SIX INCH DEPTH . Additions or correction of the FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 minutes were as follows : 1 . Page 03 Typographical err spelling of RAVINE 2 . Page 09 The last statement of A . Everett should read : THE ZONING BOARD HAS 62 DAYS FOR A DECISION . MR . ANDREWS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK INTO OTHER POSSIBILITIES BEFORE A DETERMINATION IS MADE ON THE VARIANCE . 3 . Page 10 Statement attributed to A . Everett " THREE MONTHS AGO " should be C . ANDREWS , Chairwoman Anne Everett noted that ( Page 17 ) finding listed as number 7 was left out of the " NOTICE OF DECISION SIGNED ON MARCH 19 1993 . If there is a legal way for the �Notice of ji Decision to be ammended it should be included . CHARLES HANLEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 AND JANUARY S . 1943 AS CORRECTED . ALAN LAMOTTE SECOND THE MOTION DISCUSSION : VOTE YES ( 3 ) A . EVERETT , C . HANL. EY , A . LAMOTTE NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) Charles Hanley moved to closs the special meeting . Second by A . Lamotte . Meeting adjourned . jr - TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 HEARINGS FOR : CARL E . ANDREWS : " Establish a sales office / model home BRADLEY & KATHY1COTTERILL : Erect a garage / set back / center road KENNETH & SUSAN MARASH0 Road frontage variance MEMBERS PRESENT : Chairwoman Anne Everett , Dominic Bordonaro , Alan LaMotte , Joseph Jay and Charles Hanley . Also Present : Kenneth and Susan Marash , Candy and Jeff Brown , Betsy Darling , Kathleen and Bradley Catterill , Carl Andrews , Henry Slater and Clint Cotterill , Chairwoman A . Everett introduced the members of the Board and stated there were three hearings , a continuation hearing from last months meeting and two additional hearings . The procedure format was noted . The applicant presents information , the Board will ask questions and then the audience will have an opportunity to discuss matters . After the hearings are closed the board will have private deliberation . After the Public Hearings are closed and the Board deliberates . The Public Hearing is reopened and the Board votes on the . applicants variance . KENNETH AND SUSAN MARASH CONTINUATION : A . Everett thanked the applicants for providing a copy of 11 the Deed of Conservation Easement from the Fingerlakes Land Trust . The deed refers to the Town of Dryden and the Town of Caroline and asked if any of the property was in the Town of Caroline ? K . Marash : Yes 1 . 3 acres . It is not in the area where the lot is located . A . Everett : Where is that located ? K . Marash : The land we have is divided into two sections , one where the house will be built , the acreage that is in Caroline is adjacent to the parcel that can not be built on . S . Marash : Noted that Betsy Darling from the Land Trust was present to answer any questions the Board might have . A . Everett : Does any one from the Board have any questions they might want clarified ? ZBOA 2 -2 -93 pg . 2 A . LaMotte I was under the impression that the easement limited the construction to one residence and in reading , am under the impressing two were permitted ? K . Marash : When we wrote the easement we owned the entire parcel and after the easement we sold the 16 acres and the Barn to Candy and Jeff Brown and that parcel had the provision for another house . At the time the easement was written there was a provision that two houses could go on the entire acreage . When we sold, it left our lands to have only one house . A . E . What will you do with parcel number three ? S . Marash : It is set up as a wildlife refuge , agriculture purposes , getting fire wood , intended to protect the natural area . A . Everett : Do you plan any commercial operations , logging , etc . ? K . Marash : Nothing other than farming , agriculture which is allowed . D . Darling : Selective harvesting of timer it permitted , K . Marash : No commercial venture , commercial greenhouse etc . but farm activities are allowed . C . Hanley When the parcels were set up was the Land Trust involved with selecting the area which could be built on ? K . Marash : It was our idea and was basically according to the boundaries . ' B . Darling : Basicity what we do is negotiate with the donor of the easement what conditions they want , and what we ' re happy with . If they want to develope it in a way that we felt was inappropriate we wouldn ' t accept the easement . If what they want is acceptable to us we include it in the easement . C . Hanley Asked when negotiations were being worked out didn ' t Zoning come into question ? B . Darling : The question of road frontage never came into question . I recall phoning Dryden and asking about lot sizes and allowable usage , this was far below what was allowed . 213oq 2 -2 - 9 3 , 3 C . H . You did make some contact concerning Zoning ? B . Darling : Yes . Road frontage was not relevant to us , the access in wasn ' t even on the piece covered by the easement . I didn ' t know there are road frontage laws . I wish I knew then what I know now ( will be aware for future easements ) . J . Jay : When were you ( Marash ) aware that you needed 125 feet ? K . Marash : Last fall when a sale property fell through . J . Jay : Your attorney never advised or recommended about zoning ? K . Marash : No . S . Marasha He felt there wasn ' t a problem . K . Marash : Noted the attorney stated he should have investigated it further , but at the time he did n t think there was a problem . S . Marash : He felt that there wasn ' t any compelling reason to deny it , because the easement is so much more substantial then zoning regulations . "there is only going to be one house built there ., J . Jay : Have you investigated getting any of the land back ? The 125 feet that you sold for $ 1 . 00 ? S . Marash ; He has put that property on the market and it is already under contract . It has become a sticker and a financial issue . As stated last meeting the ova 125 feet is a and any road that could be put in would cost , and emergency vehicles couldn ' t get in . A . Everett % Is that true of the land sold to the Brown ' s ? S . Marash : It would go through their yard ( 500 . C . Hanley : There was a lot of discussion last time of the right of way and what would be required in the nature of an improved road if access was to be granted , I had the impression that even though there is a right of way deeded you were not too crazy about what would be required to improve it for access ? C . & J . Brown : Is not opposed to a house being built on the land . Is concerned about the specification of the drive and that it might dominate the landscape . Can not, would not answer if opposed to the variance . ZBOA 2 -2 - 913 Pg . 4 PURLIC HEARING CLOSED 8 : 03 BRADLEY AND KATHY COTTERILL A . Everett read the following : Kathy and Bradley Cotterill having been denied permission to build a two car garage at a distance of 42 feet from the center line of Gulf Hill Road , at 337 Gulf Hill Road in violation of Section 754 . 1 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Underilipractical difficulties and / or unnecessary hardship the following letter was read . the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and in support of the appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: 1 . Proposed structure cannot be moved further back from road because of the current location, of the septic system and leach field . Relocation of the septic system and leach field would cost an additional $ 7 ,000 .00 = $ 10,000 .00 toproject which would 00 make this economically unfeasible. 2 . Proposed Structure would not be feasible built on the other side of the existing family dwelling due to well location . Relocation of well would cost an additional $5,000 .00 - $ 7,000 .00 to project which would make this economically unfeasible. 3 . The only site that proposed structure could be built without the need for an zoning appeal would be- a. Built in front of current barn structure that is used for storage. If proposed structure was built in this location it would not add to the value of the property and would end up an eyesore , b. Proposed structure would not be practical to residents if it was built in this area as it is appox . 100, - 150' from 'family dwelling . C. If proposed structure was built in this area the additional cost for a driveway would be appox . $ 8,000 .00 - $ 10,000 . 00 which would make this project economically unfeasible . 4 . Proposed structure would not be any closer to Gulf Hill Road than current family dwelling . 5 . Proposed structure would house vehicles that currently are parked between proposed structure and roadway. 7IIwA z• - 2 - 93 ( e4 - e) X� 0 E oP � IL 3 � i O O • 2 n U�,o �: ZBOA 2 -2 - 93 Pg . 5 It was noted that the Chair . received the required notification well within the allowed time frame , and read the following letter which was received by H . Slater , Zoning Officer . " We would like to state our approval for Brad and Kathy Cotterill to erect a garage next to their house at 337 Gulf Hill Rd . As the septic system and a well lie on either side of the house it would a difficult to build anywhere else " . Signed . . . . Charles and Barbara Hatfield . Dated 1 / 29 / 93 Be Cotterill submitted four pictures to be placed in the file to show where the proposed garage would be placed . The proposed building would be placed where the rear of the cars are in the photo . A . Everett : How many acres do you have ? Be Cotterill : We have 2 . 2 acres total . J . Jay : It is obvious from this map that the front of the garage will be back further then the front of the house . Be Cotterill : The house as you come down the road gets a little back from the center of the road and we intend to built it so it runs with the house . It will be back six to ten inches further . It wouldn ' t be any closer than the house is . C . Hanley : The well is on the other side of the house ? Be Cotterill : The well is on the other side of the house , right behind the tree is a dug well .and it is wet behind that and from there you go in front of the barn . If you go back toofar there are a lot of springs . It would make it more costly to build " a drive way . A . Everett : On the right side of the house ? Be Cotterill : Yes . Even on the side we are proposing back off the end of the swimming pool further there are springs and water " works their way up occasionally A . Everett : What kind of a structure will it be ? Be Cotterill : It will be framed , two car , one story . J . Jay : Match the house siding wise ? Be Cotterill : Our intention is to reside the house and garage so everything will match with vinyl siding . ZBOA 2 = 2 - 93 pg . 6 A . Everett : Will you back in , where will the doors be ? Be Cotterill : The doors will be toward the road . A . Everett : Any problem backing in and out ? Be Cotterill : Right now we are backing in and out and that is where our cars sit . The road is straight and there is no trees , there is not a vision problem . HEARING OPENED TO THE PUBLIC NO COMMENTS . . . . . . J . JAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR KATHLEEN AND BRADLEY COTTERILL . SECOND BY DOMINIC BORDONARO . DISCUSSION : None VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . EVERETT , D . BORDONARO , A . LAMOTTE , C . HANLEY , AND J . JAY . NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8 : 15 PM PUBLIC HEARING FOR CARL E . ANDREWS A . Everett read the following application : Having been denied permission to maintain a professional office within . residential construction in variance of section 751 allowed uses in the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Under practical difficulties and / or unnecessary hardship . . . The imposed restriction deprives me of utilizing my property for professional office use for the sales of new homes . I am a builder and this is my personal livelihood . My current. lease on office space expires shortly , which I can not renew . I ' m requesting the use of my property for this purpose . It willLe a residential construction that does not alter the character of the neighborhood . A . Everett read % the following : r HOVANEC V, UILDERS & DEVELOPERS CORPORATION December 14 , 1992 Henry M . Slater Zoning and Building Code Enforcement Town Of Dryden 65 East Main St . Dryden , NY 13053 Re . Viceroy Model Home Proposal Dear Henry , I am writing this letter as a proposal for constructing a Viceroy model home on a fifty nine acre property in Dryden . Model Home : The model home would be used to show potential home buyers the value and quality of a Viceroy home and as a point of sale for Viceroy Homes . Hovanec Builders is an independent distributor of Viceroy Homes . The lower walkout level of the model would be utilized as office space for conducting business associated with new home sales serving local and surrounding area 's . The model home would appear as an upper middle class well landscaped residential property that would not be occupied living space . See Exhibit # 1 . Property : The property contains 59 ( + ) or ( - ) acres with 417 " of road frontage on route 13 ( east side ) just north of route 366 intersection . See Exhibit # 2 . The property , zoned R - B - 1 , is crossed with a 100 ' NYSEG gas line right - away and a 200 ' power line right - away . These right - aways , coupled with areas of rough terrain , detract form residential use it more applicable for R- D zoning use . of the property , making The high traffic area of route 13 near route 366 intersection also make this property more suited for R- D zoning . Z3o 2 - 2 - 9 .3 Future Plans : My plans are to offer some of this property for sale to adjoining property owners . Then subdivide the property into three or four parcels for which additional models could be built and eventually sold . Summary : My primary objective is to construct one Viceroy model home utilizing the lower level as sales office space . visual appearance of the land would be improved , jobs would be created , and tax revenues would be increased for Dryden . Please advise as to what direction I should pursue . A . Request for R - D rezoning B . Application for a variance C . Application for special permit If you have any questions , please give me a call at ( 607 ) 273 - 3047 . Your consideration of this proposal ' is very much appreciated . Sincerely C Carl E . Andrews it ZBOA 2 -2 -93 Pg . Carl Andrews stated that financial things have changed and will be actually moving into the house . The office would be in the lower level . A . Everett : Are you saying you will or will not be occupying the building '' C . Andrews : There is a very good possibility . that I will . J . Jay : You own that land ? Ir C . Andrews : Yes . A . Everettil, If YOU are goingto live at the property it is a different situation , and under the Zoning laws that would be anll, allowed use and read the section which applied for, Home occupation of a professional or service nature . H . Slater : Read Section 1241 . 2d 1 of the NYS Fire Prevention and Building Code which pertained to home occupation f 1 oor !I area . Discussion between the Applicant , Zoning Board , and Henry Slater concluded the applicant would talk with the Town Board . The applicant wished to apply for ' special permit through the Town Board as the variance is more difficult to obtain . A . Everett noted for a Use variance an applicant would have to prove : " under applicable zoning regulations the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question , which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence . " That means you have to show that you can ' t make any money using that land "', for the proposed usage . C . Andrews : In describing the property it is right on Rt . 13 with a 100 foot gas line right — of —way going through it and another 200 foot electric / gas line through it . The ', terrain is almost straight up in areas of that property , which doesn ' t make it the greatest property for residential use . A . Everett : YOU could put x number of houses on that property . C . Andrews : 59 acres , yes . A . Everett : As the Zoning Boalyd has 90 days for a decision , '°' . affld Mr . Andrews will have an Opportunity to chili'leck into other possibilities ir before a determination is made on the variance . ZBOA 2 - 2 -- 93 Pg . ID A . Everett : Describe what kind of an office you would like to put in ? C . Andrews : A professional stales office , probably well within the 500 foot squj^are foot limit . A . Everette Any sales peoplei'? C . Andrews : No more than two,. A . Everette What hours of opl'eration ? r C . Andrews : Normal office hours would be nine o ' clock to five o ' clock , there would be some special evening appointments . A . Everette Lights and parking , would you have special lights on ? C . Andrews : There would probably be a sign . Parking - no more 11 than six cars , I ,lwant it to look residential like a home not an office . It would be well. landscaped , the lower level would be the office space and the . upper level would be like any normal home . A . Everett : Security lights Iliar any special lighting ? C . Andrews : It would be a good idea to have a security light for a well light '� area . C . Hanley : When did you acquire this property ? Three months ago :' C . Hanley : To give you an idea how difficult thi' s variance can be " the alleged hardship can not be self created . " You acquired it three months ago , the Zoning had been in affect , and you knew about the right - of - ways . We have to by law take into consideration the fact that any hardship may have been self " created . D . Hordonaro : What is the price range of these homes ? C . Andrews : Around $ 2001 0000 00 A . Everett : Of that almost 60 acres , how many houses do you think it will hol!' d eventually ? C . Andrews : I was looking at I,three parcels , three houses , ZBOA 2 - 2 - 93 Pg . ) / Mr . Andrews. noted he had not thought out that process but was aware of zoning and regulations for road frontage , etc . D . Sordonaro : Have yol.i %� Ireadyllapplied for a subdivision ? C . Andrews : No . My one objective is to get the one house up . A . Everett noted that now it w85 sip to Mr . Andrews , if he wishes a variance to contact Henry Slater that this hearing would be adjourned for 30 'days . CHARLES HANLEY, MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . SECOND BY JOSEPH JAY , DISCUSSION : None VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett D ., Bordonar o , A . LaMotte , J . Jay , C . Hanley . No ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) CARRIED 8 : 44 PM — DELIBERATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST KATHLEEN AND BRADLEY GOTTERILL - AREA VARIANCE A . Everett : This is a 2 . 2 acre parcel . With well and septic situation on eitFer side of the house . J . Jay : Neighbor approval . Utilities make it unreasonable to move to another location . C . Hanley : Does not producell'lan undesirable change in the character of the '; neighborhood . A . LaMotte : Will not be closer to the highway then the 11 existing house . ° C . Hanley : 27 feet is not substantial . J . Jay : I wouldn ' t putt that in as it is substantial , 40% . A . LaMotte , J . Jaye Neighbors support the project . 11 REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING 11 sill ZPOn 2 - 2 - 93 Pg . 12 Findings : 1 . It is a 2 . 2 acre parcei� l . 2 . The well and septic system restrict placement of 11 addition in a more appropriate place . 3 . Does not produce an undesirable affect on the neighborhood . 4 . Will not be closer to the highway then existing house . r 5 . Wet areas exist on thejl property . d �I 6 . Neighborhood si.jpport was present . DOMINIC PORDONARO MOVED THnT WE;I''i GRMNT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE_ TO PRnDLEY AND KATHLEEN COTTERILL . . . SECOND BY ALAN LAMOTTE . DISCUSSION : None VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett , D . ' Pordonaro , A . LaMotte , J . Jay , and C . Han 1 ey . 'Ij NO ( 0 ) nsSTnINED ( 0 ) VARIANCE GRANTED d i I� i3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ZBOA 2 - 2 - 93 PG . REOPENED DELIBERATIONS Discussion on the request of Carl Andrews : no decision or findings to be found at this time . The hearing has been adjourned at applicants request" for 30 days . KENNETH AND SUSAN MARASH J . Jay : The area variance : 1 . " Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance " ? I WOULD SAY NO . Open for discussion " ? . whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other then the area variance . A . LaMotte : I think the word there is feasible . J . Jay : What ' s the answer= to that ? I don ' t know if it ' s feasible . A . Everett : He created his problem . He had road frontage and gave it away . J . Ja y . But is it feasible right now ? Whether the benefit sought by the applicant . . in achieving it . A . Everett : That ' s not our problem . 11 J . Jay : No , right now . What ways does he have to go about doing it ? NJ A . Everett : Well I am not so sure , because he created this problem . J . Jay : Right now , the benefits sought of approving this can be achieved , „nor by allowing this building can be achieved ., by some other method feasible for the applicant to pQrs,ue ? A . Everett : I don ' t know maybe he can build a bridge or , . . ., e iV i� J . Jay % No , he doesn ' t need to do that , if he had that road frontage . He has the right - of - way to go in through the other 's way . The question is , is it feasible to , go back and get that 125 feet . A . Everette. That ' s what he may have to do . It may be an option he has to consider . Y . J . Jay : I don ' t believe it ' s feasible . Do we find that as a finding ? Is it � feasible or no ? A . Everett : That ' s not ° a finding . A . LaMotte : It would be in the affirmative , either way . A . Everett : What findings do we have ? How many parcels were sold ? When did they sell the parcels ? That ' s findings . A . LaMotte : I don ' t think thee is any dispute . They sold the property , period _ J . Jaya WP ' re in a siti_tation now , what has to be done . IL I` ZOA 2 - 2 - 937 Pg . A . Everett : They sold three parcels . Original property of approx . 80 acres . They have sold three parcels and they sold all the road frontage . ii J . Jay : The road frontage sold was not accessible to the back property . A . Everett : With the exception of SS feet . Do you agree ': J . Jay : No , because all your talking is keeping it as one parcel or not . They couldn ' t have kept that and sold the property right now . A . Everett : That ' s right . That ' s what I am saying you can ' t sell off all of your road frontage on an 80 acre parcel and then expect to get a variance . no LaMotte : They sold the road frontage . J . Jay : It is self created there is no question about that . I think that things would have been done different if they were to be done over again . But they have been done . no LaMottee Let ' s go back to the five criteria : They sold the road frontage and it was self created . " will this produce some undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood " ? I SUBMIT THAT IT WILL NOT . I would like to have that as a finding . J . Jay : The benefit can not be achieved feasibly in another way . A . Everett : What findings do ' we have ? We have to describe the type access they want . 11 A . LaMotte : Why ? In accord 'with prescribe Town Standards then . A . Everett : We have to describe the fact that they have x number of feet on Mr . Juhls property , the adjoining property to access their property . They don ' t have road frontage , where is the access coming from ? J . Jay : There is access from German Cross Roads through a and deeded right - of -way of 18 feet . is located on A . Everett : adjoining ` property . An access road winds through an adjoining parcel to the parcel to be sold . no LaMotte : Suggested that the map provided of the parcel be marked showing the right - of -way and placed in the file for reference . f'cj 1 G-� Y1 .I- �w4 L1NE NQV 4rPMn0% r0 loss rlv list -.• ` tl°r Ot'4v0 •° r(• II^x 1101. IMMIIIIT 1, . • PtR \ \ x lu• ill 19plpl of IN Al l l IIY1Irlr toll '' p C� MIo' 0f'r •tl lel101n\ n01 I°• I• XV MR (O'IU IM Mar 0t's Ir 1111 lr(I ^I IM 11V x10 V '0 wing •m U r � ' wn51 trc'It°nl orptt xl qni V r Z ti O�G/ (py C�b�o� 1 y got Y6 I'm to 1Q •�.ka NQ �C .p 1 > E -tag\ PO a E ./ . 00 SS V 1p Cn21/ 1140 O �/ �. �SF N / ' 4 lG t¢c, SURVP.•( MA V Fae COHV6VE000 nc Gl� / N f c4o� \ 44 4.AH0 FtVN HAIIA(N TD JNPTH • PAHS811 D O (!a DY ■, L, NAG °OwaLL JR. AUG ta, 14a6 0 D D �\ �i r r CHORD 04 � 1 =" ZJ•! t CREf �y rDr p�4' 154. � ' Cq •k ( 0 art ' o3q ' A4 2• q • 1r` N 4 1 c as Alfnit s F 05 Is 10) R4 Qr 1 t °' B v . ✓ lv �rlb z A9 j° Z /gin ode °c Mtn Q° 1.)• y0) OY� . [n l Kt NNF_T F I T• $ lJ9AAl MAkA3F1 ART �1 `Ib�A4� A P/o oEEo BOOK Co3Z , PAGE 8 (o5 1 + P/0 TAX MAP PARCEL. -11 - I - Zq . 4- Z J \ AC2E5 IIET -Tr, POAO PyAd G l/u > r t OD j CDJ C O = A l d � o -4 MY Aj A r a InN l' V to 4 .N / Ye � (A _ O N P (q �1- 1J a �� ; e + ^ a Iq t ti = P 8 > c N ° 4 o b _ � R 'I`° (A (n xl r . JIF 63 r) ern w r9 A 1 LI 1° I 0 EJ O! / WOL /R y/ 34R. O's 40 0. Jrit IVE SET J. 6 • rJIV OC 20 • ASH / 'rdL.l uEDG �, � Plu Eclumo c` 39 w 488. 8l�li E I O v, S30 - o9 •\4 244 . q ' . t1 1• oITHE2 LAIJOS OF ►IAQASµ, ly SURVEY( MAP P02-r101,1 OF LA " OS OF MARASH ON GERMAN CROSS R ' AD ToWr,1 OF DRYOEII fOMPKl11 $ Coul1TY 1J , Y .Sp!;,OF Alf1p AUGUST 3 , 1990 ScAL E 1 ' = loo � fit' IV, all V, '• i EL1G1 LIEEQS t* SustVEyoRS ,{0 p '•. A < ,'• t � [AND SS loges ZBOA 2 - 2 - 93 pg . 17 J . Jay : Wished the findings to reflect that the deeded right - of - way is the only feasible access to the property . It is 'pan important finding . A . LaMotte : Will it have an adverse affect or impact on the environment conditions of the neighborhood ? I can ' t see that it will . A . Everett : One woman on parcel " A " who is concerned about the road . J . Jay : She has already given up the right - of -way , A . Everett : What can we say about concerns setting a precedence . J . Jay : I think that any ' one coming before this board that has land locked property like that , I would be inclined to go for it . If it were all flat property ? ? ? That ' s why we have variances so we can deal with it . ; A . Pordprinrr a Theft dopgn9t nomp000ry preplmde granting of the variance . C . Hanley : Giving advise for the Town , that is why we are here . Even though I am abstaining , do you want to read something about the substantially . J . Jay : It is substantial . A . Everett : Findings : 1 . The original property owned is approx . 80 acres . 2 . Three parcels have been sold ; all the road frontage has been sold . 3 . It is a self created situation . 4 . There will be no undesirable effect on the neighborhood or the environment . 5 . There is a deeded right - of - way of eighteen ( 18 ) feet which is located on the adjoining property , with an access road which winds through an adjoining parcel to connect to the parcel " which is to be sold . G . There is no neighborhood opposition . 7 . Concern about the board setting a presidence regarding land locked properties . ZBOA 2 - 2 - 93 Pg . a . The variance requested is substantial . J . Jay : Another : whether the benefits sought by the applicant can it be achieved by some other feasible method . A . Everett : did not agree with the issue . A . LaMotte You may not but , but I think we should have the opportunity to vote on it . 9 . Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other feasible method is uncertain . D . Bordonaro : Car] they ? What ; is more feasible than that . If there is a way , you would have to describe it . J . Jay : Stated if they boUght ,llthe land back they still would use the right - of - way for access . The whole thing would look the same , nothing will change if they have to go out and buy that property . So that does not make it feasible to do that . I would say there are no other feasible alternatives . D . Bordonaro : We don ' t know whether it is feasible or not . We 4P asked the question , but I ' m not sure we have a good answer . I don ' t think we explored it deep enough . We heard it was under contract , does that mean it ' s impossible right now to do anything about it ? Does it mean that it ' s under contract and I don ' t want to pursue that or cost so much we can ' t afford it ? J . Jay : I don ' t think they have the funds to pursue it . If they purchased back the property and you flew over it it would all look the ' same . ( still use the right - of way ) . D . Bordonaro : Stated it was a legal issue , if they ' still had it they wouldn ' t be here . My only problem is the presidence issue . How you think you can defend it in the future , because , of certain typography considerations in this case , you may stretch it latter . J . Jay : If this was all flat property and they just sold off chunks and chunks , but they knew the bottom line was they had to come in through that one opening , there were mistakes made no doubt . D . Bordonaro : Who pays for, the mistakes ? J . Jay : Does someone have to ? D . Bordonaro : Someone has to . The Town has to or the applicant . ZBOA 2 - 2 - 93 PS, 19 Joseph Jay moved to arprove the variance based on the findings . A second to the notion was made by Alan LaMotte . Discussion : VOTE YES ( 2 ) J . Jay and A . LaMotte . NO ( 2 ) D . Bordonaro and A . "' Everett . ABSTAINED ( 1 ) C . Hanley DECISIOIJa VARIANCE DENIED A MOTION WAS MADE BY D . RURDONARO TO ADJOURN THE MEETING SECOND BY A . LAMOTTE NO DISCUSSION MEETING ADJOURNED , J C. C E R T I F I C A T E I . Jean Ryan , Recording Secretary for the Town of 11 Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , County of Tompkins and State of New York , DO CERTIFY that I have transcribed the record of proceeding held on February 2 , 1993 for the Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , such record being transcribed from tape recorder used at time of such proceedings and written notes taken by myself at the time of such proceedingsg that the within is a true copy of such meeting , to the best of my ability , and the whole thereof . May 4 , 1993 .. . . ... Jean Ryan , Recording Secretary i, Lsr U V 'r WR NOTICE OFiI DECISION I 040 TUESDAY FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 o.ru� a A public hearing to consider the application submitted by KENNETH & SUSAN MARASH , of 1362 Griggs Gulf Road , Harford Mills , New York to establish a building lot at or about 173 German Cross Road , Ithaca , New York with no road frontage and +, is requesting a variance to Section 702 . 1 and 702 . 2 of the Dryden Town '!Zoning Ordinance . A public hearing was duly conducted,i' by the Town of Dryden Board of li Zoning Appeals on Tuesday , JanUrlry 15th and Tuesday February 2 , 1993 with members present : Chairwoman Anne Everett , Dominic Bordonaro , Charles Hanley , Joseph Jan and Alan,, LaMotte . FINDINGS : 1 . The original property is approximately 80 acres . 21 . Three ( 3 ) parcels have been sold % all the road frontage has been sold . 3 . It is a self created situation . 4 . There will be no undesirab;lle effect on the neighborhood or the environment . 11 5 . There is a deeded ri ht _ o g fl, way of eighteen ( 18 ) feet which is located on the adjoining property . 6 . The access right - - of - way then winds through another adjoining parcel in order to access ;the parcel needing the variance . 7 . There is no neighborhood opposition . 8 . The variance requested is substantial . 9 . Whether the . benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other feasible method is uncertain . Joseph Jay moved to approve the variance based on the findings . A second to the motion was made by 11 Alan LaMotte , Discussion : VOTE YES ( 2 ) J . Jay and A . LaMotte . NO ( 2 ) D . Bordonaro and A . Everett . ABSTAINED ( 1 ) C . Hanley DECISION : VARIANCE DENIED Respectfully- submitted , ` n .A1 Q . )AA (� , 1...IL �� Dated . . . . . � . . . . . . Anne Everett , Chairwoman .j 1 • I` TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING sonRD �OF APPEALS APRIL 14 , ' 1993 MEMBERS PRESENTi Chairwoman Anne Everett , Alan LaMotte and Charles Hanley . Chairwoman Anne Everett " called' to order a special Meeting of the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals . The meeting was called to review , discuss and votel'' on the minutee of the January 5 , 1993 and tha February 2 , 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals minutes . After review of the January 5 , ' 1993 minutes the following additions or corrections were noted : i . Page 11 ( H . Slater ) six foot depth CORRECTED TO SIX INCH DEPTH . Additions or correction of the FEBRUARY 29 1993 minutes were as follows : 1 . Page 03 Typographical err spelling of RAVINE 2 . Page 09 The last statement of A . Everett should �J read : THE ZONING BOARD HAS 62 DAYS FOR A DECISION . MR . ANDREWS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ,, TO CHECK INTO OTHER POSSIBILITIES BEFORE A DETERMINATION IS MADE ON THE ' VARIANCE . 3 . Page 10 Statement attributed to A . Everett " THREE MONTHS AGO " should be C . ANDREWS . Chairwoman Anne Everett noted that ( Page 17 ) finding listed as number 7 was left out of the " NOTICE OF DECISION SIGNED ON MARCH 1 , 1993 . If there is a legal way for the Notice of Decision to be ammended it should be included . CHARLES HANLEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 AND JANUAR;Y 51 1993 AS CORRECTED . ALAN LAMOTTE SECOND THE MOTION DISCUSSION : VOTE YES ( 3 ) A . EVERETT , C . HANLEY , A . LAMOTTE NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) Charles Hanley moved to cloys the special meeting . Second by A . Lamotte . Meetijq adjourned . j r" - • , I •0 1 P9 • it . a ere U until several ears o all lots were measured of t p y g from the center of ` the road . The Health DepartMent does not allow for an applicant to count that land owi,ned by the State as part of the parcel . M . Platt ** When the lot was b-ought the back line was moved back in order to have an acre lot . NO C!BEST I ON : i FI1Rt M THE PUBLIC ` O Pl! BL I C HEARING CLOSED AT 7 : 40 PM DELIBERATION SESSION CLOSED TO PUBLIC; COMMENT Joseph Jay noted the request, was inconsequential and there P Y a q was no neighborhood oppositilion . A . LaMotte suggested that tt e actual number of inches being requested for the lot to come into compliance be included in the findings . • A . Everett noted that this was not a self created difficulty . HEARING RLOP ENED - M I CHAEL V I RG I N I A PE: O PLATT 7 : 4G PM FINDINGS : 1 . That the var•• i4g:ince regUeIsted is minimal , seven plays inches of relief is re (I'luested . JOSEPH JAY MOVED THAT THE VARIANC'' E BE GRANTED . ALAN LAMUTTE SECOND THE MOT1,10N . D I SGLlS4I ON : VOTES YLS ( 5 ) J . J -Ay , A . LaMotte , D . Rordonaro , C . Hanley and A . Everjett . NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) VARIANCE GRANTF D I, . 1 / [, 93 pg . PUBLIC HEARING F40R SUSAN AND KENNETH MARP, SH h The Public Hearing was openeld at 7 : 45 pm by Chair . Anne Everett : Having been denied per, missian to build a single family dwelling at or about 1. 75 G �� r;, man Crass Road in violation of Section 702 . 1 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . The following two page letter from Kenneth and Susan Marash w1as reed . III s Ii Town of Dryden , New York • Appeal to Board of Zo6ing Appeals December 17 , 1992 Kenneth and Susan Marash I� The undersigned respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : Strict observance of the Ordinance would deprive us the ability to build a single- family dwelling—an allowed use—on the property, or to sell the property for such use. In fact, we had the property under contract for sale until this zoning violation (insufficient road frontage) arose. We lost the sale and suffered significant financial hardship due to the Ordinance. Allowing the requested variance will produce no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood , which is already residential . No detriment to nearby properties will be created since building a house on this property is inl�� keeping with the use of adjacent properties and since several hundred feet will separate a new house on this property from its nearest neighbor. Further, natural vegetation andl topography will screen the house on our property from adjacent properties. The variance will have no adverse impact on ,the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. To the contrary , maintaining and protecting the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood formed the basis of our placing a conservation easement on this property with the Finger Lakes Land Trust. The easement specifically restricts construction to only one single"family dwelling on the property . It was our intention to allow modest development of our property—so that a new family could move into the neighborhood and increase the tax base of the Town of Dryden—while still protecting the rural character of the neighborhood , a,nd keeping with the goals of the Ordinance. Other than b rantin this variance they Yg e � l g s no way for us to develop the property or sell it for such purpose. Though an argument can be made that our difficulty was self-created , our intention was to remove practical difficulties that otherwise would have prohibited the property ' s development. What road frontage we had originally 'was unusable as access to the property due to topographic factors . We traded this unusable frontage with a neighbor for a 16- foot deeded right-of-way that facilitates practical access to the property. Therefore, strict adherence to the Ordinance would impose practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship on its by making it impossible for us to develop the property within the allowed uses of the Ordinance, or to sell it to someone who would buildl(a home there. By approving this variance, we would receive the benefit of being able to develop our property within the goals of the Ordinance or to sell the property to someone who would build a new home. The Town of Dryden would receive the benefit of an increased • tax base and thus greater tax revenue . By approving this variance we forsee no detriment to the health , safety or welfare of the neighborhood . Should the variance e l denied we forsee a negative g e impact on the Town in that the ir taxable value of our property will be reduced . Currently , it is assessed as prime development land . Should it be declared unbuildab;le by denying our variance, it would be hard to believe that the property would continue tojlcarry its current assessment . Rather, it would likely be downgraded to marginal vacant land , the lowest assessment category, and result in a significant drop in the amount of taxes paid to the Town . In closing, we refer to the attached statement from Gordon Schumacher, Ile is the individual who contracted to buy this property with the specific intention of building his family s home there and subsequently cancelled his contract with us because of the Ordinance ' s road frontage specification . He was as crushed as we were at this turn of events since he had fallen in love with our property and had wanted to move there and build a home. He has indicated his strong willingness to Igo through with the purchase and development if this variance is granted . It therefore seems in the best interests of us. Mr. Schumacher and the Town of Dryden to approve this variance . Thank you for your consideration . q Kenneth Marash usan Marash pg . 6 A letter was received from K'lenneth and Susan Marash • addressed to the Chair of thj;e Town of Dryden Zonincl Board on December 19 , 19920 GUESTIONS FRIOM THE BOARD J . Jay : Can you toll 1.ss whlen you bought the Property , what you had and how it ! got subdivided ? K . Marashe I bought the property in 1979 . In 1986 1. sold off about six acres al 'long German Cross Roads . In 1990 we divided again a,nd sold about a sixteen acre parcel , the house {11 was living in and also at that time traded what rlemained of our road frontage , fesr� a doodet right ,ll of ® way a% cness into thcM property . The reason I did that the land where the road frontage was is a ravine and is impassable . nt th 'e time I was unaware of the 11 Zoning Ordinance problem . I was trying to affect 1_% se of the 1� ropert �ly and that road frontage was unusable , we decided it was best if we could get the usable access to the property and make it usabI e . V S . marash : Introduced a survey and pictures of the property . 'rhere is a feeder stream that goes into =iix Mile • Creek , a deep ravine that , separates the property from German Cross Roads . The pieces that were deeded off were between the ravine and the road . The reason we tried to get a difference arrangement in this was because the remaining road frontage which we Find for access was virtually impossible because °, it is a ravine , wide and deep and . also another =. tream in the middle of that 12Uj feet . It wasn ' t usable for getting into the property . J . Jay : Did you own this at one time . S . Marashe Yes . rhat ' s what we sold , sixteen acres . We originally owned 80 acres . C . Hanley : That first piece in 1986 is where the ormiginal barn apartment was '' S . Marash: : No . 0n the cur-- ve of German Cross Roads , and right now the house has all turret on it . Then in 1990 we sold the campsite area , the original barn area . ( area in white on map ) 11 We had road frontage that was sold to the father • and son ( Juhl ) whol ; s grandfather orig . owned the property . Mr . J �_ihl 'I always wanted more area arour7d his trailer and we !Kneed access to the bark property . - _ ... .. _ __ . i Pl / 9 � —7 P9 • J . Jay weTl-sis would have never beer, usabl e , never . S . Marash : No . Ino1 _< <lirrg up qto the barn . II , C . Hanley : How Much fr• orrtage , il the original barn area over to about; where the stream begins was that ? K . M a r a s h : It wasn ' t ml_u_ h . Candy Brown : This is the only Disable frontage to the property , approx . `. tC feet . K . Marash : We scald t: hre , barn z�lnd 16 areas to Jeff , and Candy and traded the fouIl:r acre parcel for the right of way ill 19190 S . Marash : The area wasn ' t us;'lable to us so we arranged with Albert the son toIlgive him land for the right of way across his fathers parcel . A . Everett : Do you have that inn writing ? S . Marash : . Yes . It went in aiIll the deeds . C . Brown : The rest of the deieded right of way goes through our property . I w;'ould like to make it clear of what thE-A 'right - of i'-way entails . Our understanding of it- was when we (bought the property , that ' s my concern , it is a very long right -- of -way . n . Everett : Where do you live now ? Have you ever lived here ? S . Marash : In . Harford mills . We lived in the barn on German Cross Roads for fifteen years . C . Hanley : I just want to Mali !I it clear , because on the paper ( Map ) it lonlas like you gave up your road frontage . Put yol_ri gave it Lip because essentially this road Fr� ontcxgelil with the steepness of the topography would have required incredible amounts of development to make a driveway . So you gave th (_( t Lip :in gar % der tip get a Lrsable right - of — way bar_` I < here . Though it shows a lot of road frontage here in terms of ..isable , frontage with out: a lot of • expendil.- ur-' e you only had this 50 feet : K . Marash : Intr~ oduko-- ed st ;� temelIts from neighbors that they did not oppose the variance . fl . AlL' r''' i5tt : 4fi ; icli rar r _, , tre y ;_ _i ' intending to sell ? • i 1 93 pg . 8 9 K hlarash : The green and the orange . ( see map attached ) The green zareca is iwhere the house would go . The Or^ anqe section is !' limited by a conservation easemen a t nd there can not be any houses built in that area . P J . Jays Do@s thv right - Qf - wAy p straight er does it c- kir) v@ over' ? K . Mearash : Both , it goes to t'fhe edge of the property line and then it also paralllels the property line going Lip the hill . A . Everett : There is no way the orange area can be developed ? V . Marashe As residential , it can be used for farming , timbering , agricul!!, tural , and recreation . It is accessed by the same right - of - way . C . Drown : There are no recreational vehicles allowed on this property , ar_ cordiniig to the conservation easement . K . Marash : The conservation el' asement allows for the property to be divided into, the two properties ( green and orange ) but no further . A . Everett . REQUESTED MR . MARA, SH PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH A COPY OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT , A COPY OF THE DEED SHOWING THE RIGHT bF WAY . Read into the record the letters received no' opposing the variance . POLCleS Is . t: his right - of - way in existence today ? Do you have a SCE , 18 foot] road paved what ever going through the property ? K . Marash : No it only exist on paper• at this point . C . Brown : In the deed it say'1s there is a right - of - way for a road , but the conservation easement states how wide it is 16 or 118 feet and that it is not suppose to be paved . The intention and understanding that !!, we had was that the road wo +_ild be like a farm road . Something that someone could use with a four wheel vehicle , a simple drive way . A lot of things c6huld be a real concern to us because the right - `of - way for the other people is like ISO feptl but it goes through our whole property which is close to our house and goes Lip a long hill and is approx . 1100 feet . it January 4 1993 • To: Town of Dryden Board of Zoning Appeals From ; Erick Smith and Debbie Halpern RE ; Zoning variance application of Kenneth and Susai'n Mamsh We are neighboring property owners of Kenneth and Susan Marash ` s land on German Cross Road in the Town of Dryden . We are familiar with the Marashes aplication to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a zoning variance to allow a building lot on the property they currently own and are trying to sell . The variance is necessary due to insufficient road frontage. We have no objection to the Marashes plans and therefore have no objection to the variance being granted) Thank you for considering our input. Signed . it (�� l Ok • tc,^u �c,�vv�lU/K. t 1 �( "� j-0 4 C( a � 1 V January 4 , 1993 OTo : Town of Dryden Board of Zoning Appeals Y g Pp From : Residents of Getman Cross Road RE : Zoning variance application of Kenneth and Susan Marash We are neighboring property owners of Kenneth and Susan Marash on German Cross Road in the Town of Dryden . We are familiar with the Marashes application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a zoning variance to allow a building lot on the property they currently own and are trying to sell . The variance is necessary due to insufficient road frontage . We have no objection to the Marashes plans and therefore have no objection to the variance being granted . Thank you for considering our input . Signed : vl/4( I v ICI &060404 0 • II so 4-I ch%w z� Q � qe4 la•, . C+-o s s cJ` [ 0 s ii i pg . i R s ,Youhta4lght th . pr operty in lM knowing thlra wa % possibility ? P, C . brown : Yes . When I callTed and learned whet the Towns concerns may be , and I don ' t know what the variance is goinq ' to bring . I was told there may be some concerns about whet kind of a road it is. , and I want to male e sure that the intention and the legality is going 'jto stay the same as it was when, we boLtght the property . It is a greet dea-1 of land on oi.cr property . I was told all sorts of stuff like we might be responsible for C0nstruction of the road and that wasn ' t our intention . That we might be responsible for maintaining a right - of -way , if a variance is granted that saysllthe Town requires certain things of the right - of - wiry . H . Slater : According to the bLcilding code anytime yolt_c have a structu_ llllp that is 111i feet off a public highway it then falls to me as to that service road to that strLitctLre . The first thing Illwill do if the variance is . approved and I receive an application for a Str1_tctLire is to commtcnicate with the fire chief of .jurisdiction in that area , who is Chris O ' Connor r of the Varna Station , and ask him what would be minimal acc.- eptable to his fire fighting equipment . He will Y robabl tell me it - has to be capable of a P P r' 5 ton tanker of 30 feet length , which probably means a ten foot tied , ( gravel filled ) compacted into place , six ' depth . The vegetation along the road way will" also be maintained and keep from growing over it to a point where it would interfere with passage of a vehicle that has to _ cover a -Len, foot wide path . C . Brown * What about fences . ', One reason we boUght the property is for the horses and someone is going to have to open and c'; lose the fences in order to get onto our property ? A . LaMotte : That woUldn ' t be o,,ur problem . K . Marashe The land was placed in the trust in 1990 to protect the land from over development . 1 3 pg . G . Frae : n : I have tw. o Concerns . I don ' t understand what your 7 ta Ding about when you talk about the driveway and the gravc•_ l. base . There are restrictions on the land and what: they conservation easement is trying to +--1C' l_ c:iInr.JI iI_ II a to protect the land , to protect tF ; t: ev t lands , the streams , to keep the natural look of the .land . That was way a farm road way_. proposed and thatj7was the intention that it would be very minimral . The Conservation Easement people were concerned about this right -- of — way and in there it is written that any other roc-.rd we put in shell only be 12 foot wide . The right — of --way goes through wet 1. d = . Wished to know hotl'v the hearing would proceed , if 11 more information would be gathered and what weight is put on the right - of - way to the granting of the variance . , The Chair explained it could be grantedd with stipulations , postponed , denied , or just gr ;:� nted without stipulations . S . Marash : When we sold the property to Candy and Jeff Brown Was ws !`tnTI was pUt the conservation easement on it . During that proces, �> we had 1Giwyer^ s , appraisers , sI -crveyors doing all this . When we set this up it was our understandling that what we needed , if we didn ' t have road frontage , was a deeded right - of - way and that ' s why we did what we did . Discussion on the NYSE & G access others use off Burns Road and all assumed no one was going to use the ilOO , foot right — of —way and - everyone doing , the easement discussed and assumed that possibility . J . Browne : Right now we only ' have foot and horse . access on that right — of -- Way : C . Brown : Asked if ti-le variance , iF granted , could stipulate tF; �� t t ) ; r� right -- of11way wouldn ' t have to be developed for access if a structL( re permit is requc., stec:1 . If thb builder was going to use the P•! `tSEFr land as -they assume he is , it wouldn ' t be necessary to change the land from what it is now . 11 The Board ass �lred h; Er tnat if a variance is granted it is only for road fro7-1t <_; ge ar; d not for any other Town requirements , • F ! F. f1F; l f IC: C: !._ CGED n : 40 PM 11 it o- Pg • ► 3 - � VARIANCE AE:: PATI � ti I MARA � I J . Jaywished to know if there an other parcels in the 11 Y Town where variances were granted with out road frontage . A . Everett Couldn ' t remember any . A . LaMotte related the structure which was built on Short Road an abandoned road and Finally was granted a VeYNiarIce after getting a right - of - way off the grandmother . . . . t1gF . They had 80 oQreg and they subdivided in to 5 parcels . join the 43 and IS acres are together , so there are 4 parcels . The green and orange go together but YOU can only build on the green area . But as was pointed out these two even though there is substantial road frontage , this is a big ravine there so is not usable road frontage . My understanding is the only usable road frontage there is ; is the small road frontage here . A . t... . Where the barn is . A . E. The point i �. it is rowel frontage . If he wanted to • develope it he could have put a road back to develope -the property . join Probably not , rill of tf,re other environmental causes wouldn ' t let him . I don ' t know , but because of low lands like that there are water restrictions probably couldn ' t have put a road back there . A . L . Fill in . that ravine . . . that would be doubtful . J . J . They wouldn ' t allow him to fill in a ravine . A . E . The point is we have s !_tbdivision regulations and they could have possibly come back with some kind of a road . Jg J . It ' s my understiandinp 6'Znd OcQording to the picture too , the ravine gees all the way except for this little sect i on . DiScUssion concluded doe toth'e large parcels of land 5Q1d this was not a sUbdivision . Hei! divided the land but it was not a subdivision in legal terms . A . E . He sold off call ° his road frontage . � join It was unaccessible . It was not usable road fr-- ontrage . P . Bo If he had saved 12`5 foot of ro .-, d frontage , and came back to us and said , I ' ve got 125 foot , but I have a problem because they won ' t allow us to put a road in there , then it is reasonable to allow a variance . When there is absolutely nothing it ' s a totally different problem . it 1 ,/ 5 / 93 pg . r + + would o • D . Be Even if ► . e do gr �� , ► : zt it s not clear that :� t a g much further anyway . AsL . The net affect , if thn'iy had had that road frontage they would still have needed this right - of - way for C-► ccess to that proper -ty . u Do Be Probcably , but tFte -rc avo` t_► ld have been more .jt.► stifiCatiorr in getting it . J . J . So an opt i of-t is t o try and get back 125 feet from some of the property that he sold . Do Be It ' s up to t_► s to decide whether we want to allow the 'I variance without any access . J . J . It i s a se 1 f r_ reat ecl Frobl em , even thac_► gh triiny were not aware of it . An Es Options : to deny it , t3 & 5 . . . . ; , request further information ; to grant its to visit the site . is lie Number 3 a-:rnd 5 bath htAlve got to be met , is that correct ? A E It ' 5 not a mE► tter-° gf h, ayinq tQ be met Ro5itilvely l, ilig • in a use variance , but: we certainly have to consider whether the requested ! area variance is substantial . When you are talking about zero feet road frontage thaat is st.► bstant: ial . Whether the alleged difficulty was self crec-tted '' I thinbt we all agree it was self created . ,T . J . But self created zT., sculling things off and then going afterwards . I 1c_t - k r, t this land and say that ' s 612) acres of nice land , i. t , is not going to be abused , it would be t_► nfortt_; nzt. e il' f it can ' t be done on a matter of a technicality . He r_ oluld probably go and obtain 125 feet beck fr-- om the grr ndson , then they can give him a permanent right - of - way, to use that 125 feet , so he solves a leg < 1 matter , bt..► t is this a technicality , I ' d like to see that used ' properly . C . H . While it logics from th, e survey that it would be simple enough to 1-I .Ave somebody give back 125 feet , because of the topography of tl -re island that it is impractical to put a road there ( ravi" ne ) do we take that into consider--at ion ? Consensus of the boal -- d thaat they wouldn ' t need a variance . They would oT ► ly !,? ;_ i ; , : r_ lved ►f: itlh the building commissioner to • c:: onstrt_► ct a Usable clr :iveway to I, the property . 1 5 9 p� g 15 D . B . Concerned tl­iat there c-+ 'gyre many land locl * ed areia n s i t1-1e town and if a variance , is granted the consequences it could have on future variance requests If this is approved there is absol �_ctely no rational for disapproving any others . tnoL . & J . J . Remarked that the ravine makes this property u n i q l_c e . C . Hs Concerning the Finger ILakes Land Trlcst Easement11 : Wal_cicl like to see this type of protection for development enr.. ouraued . This is a 'u factor , however did not know if it was enough of a factor for the variance . The land trust gives a mbn/e stable enforcement than zoning . As Le This is an unusual circ umstance because of the ravine . It isn ' t simply a caselof selling off the frontage where he wanted to builld and then comes back with requested variance . J . J . The easement is done . We haven ' t read any of it but both parties told us ill t was done . If it is Disable has nothing to do with us . We have just got to assUme that it is there . It is myibelieve that we have enough information to make a determination . Is it significant and is it self created ." I also think we have to go with the benefits to the property and to the neighborhood . The owner of the easement has objected to a point but the others have gone along with it . Obvious Q, to 1L5 feet is significant , b �ct we still have to sit here a . ; d say because of the uniqueness of the situation , uniqueness of the land , the resUlt if this is denied . . . . . D . E; . I ' d be more concerned Iabout establishing precedence . Om not concerned about this particular property . The next person that comes with a ravine , and we have had others , you are going to give them all variances . no E . They should htnve held on to their frontage . ,J . J . They probe—zbly should h6ve kept what they gave �awray for nothing . it is a techrllicality , it would just be sitting there , what" s the difference . It doesn ' t make a difference for the development of the neighborhood , it doesn ' t make a difference for tax base . Zoning .laws are to protect the integrity of the Town , the integrity of the neighborhoods , 'and wise Lose of properties . It is going to be clone , it is my guess one way or another , This is a mr_. ter of a technicality , getting this little block of land back . If they have to do that it is Up to us to ma 'r, e a , decision on , or% if they have to pay a lawyer to do it . , 1 / '5 / 93 pg . � lp ta . L . Read : Instead of showing " practical difficulty " , An applicant would . simply ' apply for the area variance desired . The statute provides that in making its determination on an application for an area variance , the board of appeals mt 'tst consider two basic things : the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted , and the detriment to the health , safety and general welfare of the ' neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted . This is in essence a " balancing " approach , in which the board weighs these two 'linterests and makes its det erm i nc-tt i an . I would submit based on' that , that they are sUggesting not only we take into t'! onsideration , you ' ve got to loot( at the health , safety , !' and welfare of the general community arrd I am not 'Iaware of any was demonstrated , but also the benefit that would be granted to the • applicant . To me it is saying those two things should bare equal weight in oL' r decision making process , and in view of the fact that no one , if I understood the discussion here tonight, , suggested that there would be any detriment to the community . If I might further point out the last lines in ( number ) 11 lines 5 was the , difficulty self -- crenated , but continues to say thz:it ' but shall '', not necessarily preclude the granting of tf... area variance ' where it would in a use variance . There is no !` way that I can make the claim that it was not self -- created . I think we are on very solid ground in granting it . The topography involved I think one of the r_ ompel 11 ling . factors so far as were not establishing a precedence in the future . The whole piece of property withiithe exception of that small plot next to the t:) arn is bordered by that ravine . A . E . OUR FINDINGS IN THIS Cn%3C ARE WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSULT 1HE TOWN ATTOPNEY , MAHLCON PERKINS , TO DISCUSS SOME PER I TNENT A , A:') F' ECTS OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST . • /l�lq93 i r lil • A MOTION `WA1 .; MARL_ BY DOM I N I C PURDONARO TO ADJOURN THE - MEETING UNTIL. WE CnN GET LI^: C AL COUNSEL AND TO RECONVENE AT A LATTER DATE . SECOND . r-• i ..1 III' SECOND WAS MADE BY Jt 2EP � JnY . DISCUSSION : ALAN LAMOTTE ING! UIRED IF THE ADJOURNED DATE WOULD HE AT THE NEXT MONTHLY MEETING OR IF A SPECIAL MEETING WOULD BE WELD ? BOARD AVREED THE REGULAR FEBRUARY ` , 1993 MEETING SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT . VOTE * YES ( 4 ) A . L PMOTTE , D . BORDONARO , J . JAY AND A . EVERETT . NO ( 0 ) neSTATNE: D l( 1 ) C . HANLEY • JOSEPII JAY MOVED TO (1DJOLIRN . . . . , SECOND BY D . BCIRDGNARCI UEt.; I DE : i• 0 USTA I hd LEGf1L OP I N I � N , DUE i' 0 THE UN I OUC � ET OF Cl RCUMSTANC:ES . REVIEW THE EASEMENT . ADJOURN THE PROCEEDING UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING . 15 IJ V L5 D JAN 2 21993 MICHAEL AND VIRGINIA PEO PLATT JANUARY 59 1993 Michael and Virginia Peo Platt of PO Box 212, Freeville ; New York 1306a are requesting permis',', sion to establish a building lot at or about 35 Mill Street , Freeville ; NY with 124 . 35 feet of road frontage and rare requesting a variance to Section 702. 1 and 702 .2 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordiance to do so. A public hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday January 5, 1993 with members present : Chairwoman Anne Everett, Dominic Bordonaro, Alan LaMotte , Joseph Jay and Charles Hanley . FINDINGS : • 1 . That the variance requested is minimal , seven plus Inches of relief is requested. JOSEPH JAY MOVED THAT THE VA RIANCE BE GRANTED. ALAN LAMOTTE SECOND THE MOTION. DISCUSSION: VOTE : YES (5) J . Jay , A. Lamotte ; D. Bordonaro, C. Hanley and A. Everett . NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED AU a�-� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATE ANNE EVERETT • / JR TOWN OF 'DRYDEN 11 ZONING BOARD,, OF APPEALS APRIL 14, , 1993 MEMBERS PRESENT : Chairwoman Anne' Everett , Alan LaMotte and Charles Hanley . !, Chairwoman Anne Everett called to order a special meeting of the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals . The meeting was called to review , discuss and votle on the minutes of the January J , 1993 and the February 2 , 1993 'j:, Zoning Board of Appeals minutes . After review of the January 519 1993 minutes the following additions or corrections were noted : 10 Page 11 ( H . Slater,' ) six foot depth CORRECTED TO 11 SIX INCH DEPTH . Additions or correction of the FE;IBRUARY 2 , 1993 minutes were as follows : 1 . Page 03 Typographical err spelling of RAVINE • 2 . Page 09 The last statement of A . Everett should read : THE ZONING BOARD HAS 62 DAYS FOR A DECISION . MR . ANDREWS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY' TO CHECK INTO OTHER POSSIBILITIES BEFORE A DETERMINATION IS MADE ON THE' VARIANCE . 3 . Page 10 Statement attributed to A . Everett: " THREE MONTHS AGO " '+ should be C . ANDREWS . Chairwoman Anne Everett notedl'ithat { Page 17 ) finding listed as number 7 was left out of the "NOTICE OF DECISION SIGNED ON MARCH 1 , 1993 . If there is a legal way for the Notice of Decision to be ammended it should " be included . CHARLES HANLEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 AND JANUARY J , 1993 AS CORRECTED . ALAN LAMOTTE SECOND THE MOTION DISCUSSION : VOTE YES ( 3 ) A . EVERETT , C . HANLEY , A . LAMOTTE NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) 'I' Charles Hanley moved to class the special meeting . Second b A . g Y Lamotte . Meeting adjourned . jr.