Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07 I� ' TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • SEPTEMBER 7 , 1993 AGENDA : PROPOSED TOWN LAW : Education and attendance requirements for members . SERVRITE CORE' . : Locate a sign Closer than 15 feet from DOT right - of - way at the Etna Lane facility . ROBERT ARMSTRONG . Erect a woodshed with overhead play loft closer than 70 feet from the center of Turkey Hill Road . GEORGE / ELLEN SHANK : Create a building lot at 99 Wood Road with 50 feet of shared road frontage . KENNETH / SUSAN MARASHe Establish an allowed use lot with no road frontage at / about 175 German Cross Road . MEMBERS PRESENTc Chair- . Anne Everett ; Alan L. aMotte ; Joseph Jay ; Charles Hanley ; and Mark Varvayanis . • Also present but not limited to : ( 3 ) I, neighbors to hear information presented concerning Serrite Corp . ; Robert Armstrong ; Attorney Charles Guttman ; Kenneth and Susan Marash ; George Shank ; Henry Slater ; Clinton Cotterill ; Attorney Mahlon Perkins ; Martin Bleiweiss and Mrs . Brown - Schmidt . The meeting was called to order by Chair . Anne Everett at 7 : 00 PM and stated the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the purposed new Town Law which will 'Ideal with the attendance and education requirements for ZBA Board Members . Chair . A . Everett pointed out that last spring the New York State Office of Rural Affairs sponsored teleconferences throughout the County held at Cornell University and TC3 , which would have meet the education requirement . She stated they were informative and interesting and that the educational requirement was a way to ensure that ,members attended at least one training and review session . Meetings with the Town Attorney would also be very helpful . Alan LaMotte stated that they have been having meetings with the Town Attorney without going through this requirement and wondered if that couldn ' t continue . A ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 2 V Joseph Jay expressed concern if 11 a member wasp ' t able to • attend at , a given date and time . HeiIstated that the attendance at the meetings each month was well attended by the members . We have the advice from the Town Attorney and thought this was another piece of " r1ed tape " for members who try to serve the Town . The Board is9already restricted in using its • own judgment because of th ''e State Regulations . Mark Varvayanis : " Assuming that ;this Law hadn ' t been passed yet . There are still ways the Town Board can , just 11 decide we ', re being obnoxious , and get i_► s off aren ' t there ? Or once we are appointed are we here for life " ? li Alan L' aMotte : " It is my understanding we serve at the pleasure of the Town Board . We ' re appointed by them and they can remove us or ask for Our resignation at any time . That; has always been my understanding " . i Chair %.� But they need just cause , and if there is a law and the continuing education or attendance requirements have not been met that gives them more leeway in removing someone . The Chair . also stated in all the years she has been a member no one has ever been asked to be removed . All members agreed the attendance requirement as stated was very liberal . • Joseph' Jay stated he would like the Board to address the issue / restriction on " Use Variance " and suggested the Board invite Martin Luster and discuss the ;li, possibility of making changes . The Chair . stated that this law was an effort for continuing, education to help understand the new zoning law . A . LaMotte said that Mahlon has been bringing that before the board 'and why is that not adequate . A . Everett stated she has seen Mr . Perkins at only one meeting in , the eight years she has been serving prior to this time period . The Board still needs help with the findings . I The Board discussed the proper wording for " findings " in relation to an appeal . i I I 'ail II ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 FAG . 3 Henry Slater inquired if the Board w'Iould be willing to have a extra meeting in two weeks as he has had an application since July 21st . The Chair . has not recei 'ived any notice as required by the applicant therefore the meeting will be held in Oct . as scheduled . M . Varvayanis wished to make one , last comment on the law and stated he thought it was .just very liberal wording that the Board follows anyway , and If it Ilis passed he doesn ' t think it will change the way the Board runs at all and that doesn ' t bother him . However he is uncomfortable with the Chair . saying the Board supports it without actually putting it to a vote . Chair . stated she didn ' t " I clearlysaid id that this was; my initiative , but if you would like to � offer a resolution and say the Board does or does not support this we will entertain it and vote on it " . Mr . LaMotte stated he would like to work on the wording of a resolution and requested that the meeting proceed with the agenda as the Public was present and return to these procedures at the conclusion of the hearings . The Chair . Anne Everett stipulated there were four • variance request scheduled for the evening and introduced the Zoning Board Members . Stating the procedure followed is to read the legal notice published and the request for the variance . The applicant can presentladditional information before thelBoard questions the applicant . The public will then have an opportunity to comment and the hearing will be closed . After all variance request have been heard the Board will have a deliberative session . No further questions can come from the floor however if a member has a question or needs clarification on issues the applicant may respond to the Board Members question . After a variance has been heard and you do not wish to stay for the whole evening , you are welcomed to call H . Slater in the morning for the result of the decision . Decisions are usually made the evening of the hearing however , the Board does have '!62 days in which to decide the variance . SERVRITE CORP . 7 : 30 PM FREE STANDING SIGN - ETNA LANE Chair . ! A . Everett opened the Public Hearing for the • SerVrite Corp . ( Three interested parties were present in order to be informed about the variance request . ) 11 At 7 . 45 PM the following motion was granted ; I ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 4 14 MARK VARVAYANIS MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FOR SERVRITE CORP . BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS THE APP �i' ICANT OR HIS AGENT WERE 11 NOT PRESENT TO PRESENT THE CASE ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDUREIADOPTED JULY 6 , 1993 . ti JOSEPH JAY SECOND THE MOTION . I� Discussions. VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett , Co Hanley , J . Jay , A . LaMotte , and M . Varvayanis . I NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED i ( 0 ) i� VARIANCE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . I 7 : 45 PM PUBLIC HEARING - IPROBERT ARMSTRONG I �I ; ERECT A WOOD SHED WITH OVERHEAD PLAY LOFT 301 TURKEY HILL ROAD - CLOSER THAN 70 FROM CENTER OF ROAD Chair . A . Everett opened the Pub'I4 is Hearing at 7 : 43 and read the public notice which was publlished in the Ithaca Journal . This is an Area Variance and the criteria which the board must consider was stated as follows : The Zoning Board of Appeals shallll have the power upon an appeal from a decision or determ 'iination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement oil' such ordinance or local law , to grant area variances from the area or dimensional requirements of such ordnance or local ' law . In making its determination , the zoning board of appeals shalllitake into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted , as weighed against the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant . In making such determination the board shall also consider : 1 . whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will hl r. rp ,14: PH by lill: hp r� f^ antinct of �h '! arpa vAvr anCp . u . . .... . . . . . whother tVj@ b 16f t bomight by th i[ E- witCan by achieyled by Brame method , feasib l for, the applicant to purrau@, , other than an area varia ' ce q I, ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 FAG ,. S 3 . whether the requested area variance is substantial ; 4 . . whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect 11 or impact on the physical or env ^ ironmental conditions in the neighborhood or district ; and S . whether the alleged difficulty was self created , which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the ,board of appeals , but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance . It goes on to say the board in granting an area variances , shall grant the minimum variancellthat it shall deem necessary and adequate . Those are the things that we take into consideration . The Chair . noted Mr . Armstrong was proposing a plastic greenhouse lean - to addition to the house and a woodshed with overhead play loft . Note : A variance is not needed for the greenhouse lean -. to addition to the house . The variance ` requested is for the woodshed with overhead play loft closer than 70 feet from the center of the road . The application read by the Chair . continued : Our home is an old ' farm house quite close to the road ; other site locations which do not block windows , severely conflict with , or necess ., 1tate remevai of mature landscaping , are quite far • from the point of entry , and downhill as well . Noted the neighbors had been notified . QUESTIONS FROM THE POARD At the chair ' s request Mr . Armstrong explained the diagram which accompanied the application . In particular the distance from the road to the prior structure ? R . Armstrong : We have cut wood and burned it for many years since 177 and we have always tended to stack it in this location , fairly near the road , because that part of the property was wooded as opposed to lawn . It seemed to be an appropriate place to stack the wood . Over time we learned a bit that it is nice to have the wood dry . We used tarps , then began to put some posts up for the ends because crossing the ends doesn ' t always hold up . Gradually we ' ve evolved to a small structure with pools and plastic roof . So we don ' t have to deal with snow right on the tarp in . the middle of winterl. i ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . b R . Rrmstro' ng : I don ' t know if Henry evolved the term nonstrUctural but I I, don ' t recall using it in my application . I think what that means is something that is not a permanent nature . You can ' t have a structure that is nonstructural . it A . Everett' : Describe the proposed structure ? When you, say an actual wood 'shed with a play loft , what is that ? R . Armstroingo We have sides now fri^ om the old struI tore that had a plastic roof which was basically parallel to the sloop of the ground . We found that that low ,! pitch roof was not a good way to keep the water from running through the walls and we realize that if we put a more conventional s �lplit pitch , " V " type roof with more of a sloop the water would shed and not lay in there . Our plastic covering would probably last longer] and not necessitate changing it every year . In raising that what You have is an attic and I thought that that would be a nice place for the kids . As kids from my experience tend to like little spaces . A . Everettle What building materials will you use ? 11 R . Armstrong : We would use rough cut lumber , the base of the structure we want open in the front and the back . To load the wood in the back and have access from the front . On the sides we want to maintain some air flow so even they are .just slatted basically . A . Everett : How large a structut e ? R . Armstong : 16 by 12 . A . Everett : How many feet from tlhe road will this be ? R . Armstong : The nearest side would be 42 feet from the center of the road . A . Everett : How many feet from the shoulder of the road ? I R . Armstong : The road is about 10„ feet , the shoulder there is about 5 feel: , Thiiere are smme trees than i i 1 ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PGv 7 C . Cotteril ,l : The highway control 's 25 feet from the center . R . Armstong ' : The road was widened maybe 5 years ago and we had a row of sprucelltrees that were within 25 feet . 23 down to 21i1 and they actually left the closer ones and '; removed a number of the ones that were a little further away but were down hill where they were building the road up . A . Everett :, These trees are on your property then , is that what you ' re saying ? R . Armstong ' : Yes . A . Everetts. l What about other options ? How big a piece of land is that ? How lmany acres ? R . Armstong : Well it ' s 20 acres . Ii A , Everette Do you have any other options where you could situate this where you would be in compliance ? R . Armstrong : Well certainly we could , but basically the options would be a semicircle around the back of the house . Which would obviously be further% than 70 feet from the center of the • road . The problem !"is , I ' m not sure it ' s a problem but the situation is that those are the areas around the living rooms of the house where we enjoy looking out . It ' s a fairly scenic spot , '', actually we have hills on one side and a pondlin back and then we have our driveway . We like to see the people who are coming to visit ; we like to see them a little bit before they knock on the door on the other side . Wel4could put it other places but we have evolved this place over the years . It has been serviceable one and a good one in terms of not blocking views . C . Hanley : Are you going to re �_► se any of that structure that you have there now ? R . Armstrong : Yes . C . Hanley % I assume you have a 'lpole sunk into the ground ? So they would form the bases for the pole barn construction ? R . Armstrong : Yes . �iu ICI ZPA 9 / 7 / 93 FAG . a C . Hanley : So you need to use l, You got of there now '? R . Armstrong : Well I don ' t need tho but I would a . . . C . Hanley * That ' s a cons ideratilion in your cost estimate , is the reusing of tlhose poles ? R . Armstron', q : The cost estimate , we can cut our own lumber but there is time involved . So easy to ding 3 feet down or so . A . Everett : ` Would this have a wl"ood floor ? R . Armstron 'g % The loft area would', have a floor . The bottom I s just gravel for drainage underneath the stack of wood . I A . Everett : Windows ? doors ? R . Armstron �go I would imagine there would be a window on each end of the play loft . A . LaMotte : You spoke of the gravel . This is just elevated above the terrain around it then ? R . Armstrong : Well no . It ' s just ','12 or 3 inches of gravel that has been spread on the ground . We also have a little driveway there that we back in with a pick up truck . I used to cut on state land . C . Hanley : How high to the peak of this ? R . Armstrong : About 13 . 6 . Q . Hanleya So about where you Have the set of uprights now ? R . Armstrong : Well it was to see i. f it was feasible , yes . Just to see what it " would look like . C . Hanley : So it will have a fairly steep pitch ? R . Av� mstronq : Yes it would . A . LaMotte : This is not what yoL i would call an " A " frame though ? R . Armstronga No . Would you like :' to see a little drawing of it ? �i� ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 FAG . 9 A . LaMotte : ' No . You spoke about a steep pitch and that all . II U J . Jay : Indicated he would '' like to see the drawing . A . Everett : ` I would like to take this opportunity to enter into the record that the notice of appeal was filed inlla timely manner . Mr . Armstrong produced the drawing which showed a sketch of the side view and the front view of the structure . M . Varvayanis : Are those samples of the shingles that you 11 are planning on using ? If R . Armstrong : Yes . I didn ' t knows' if that would be appropriate or notes; These are actually rejects . One of the reasons I considered to make this , instead of the plastic is we would like to test these before we pint them on the house . We would like to restore it to its old status . It hasji, shingles underneath the asphalt . We would like to make them . We are testing Locus and Larch . A . LaMotte : ;! You are making the shingles ? R . Armstrong : Yes . A . LaMotte : Treated before they are applied ? R . Armstrong : Locus is already treated by the grace of God . Actually Larch is pr,, etty decay resistance as well . I would likelito see how well it does . We don ' t have Locusbut we do have Larch , and Larch is easier to work with soft . Locus isn ' t is bad as everyone says . They ' re telling me that it warps and twist . I had never heard of anybody making Locus shingles , but I thought I would try it . This is one of the worst ones in terms of ( . . cuping . . ) that ' s not too bad . ,i If you leave it out in the rain it doesn ' timove as much as most other woods , it doesn ' t swell . The Chairs inquired if there were any other question from the Board ? If there was any one from the ', general public who wished to be heard ? No further . questions . There was no one present for this hearing from the public . THE PUBLIC,, HEARING FOR MR . ARMSTRONiG WAS CLOSED AT 8 . 03 FM 8 ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 10 PUBLIC (HEARING - GEORGE AND ELLEIV SHANK - 99 WOOD ROAD CREATE A BUILDING LOT WITH 50 FEET ° DF SHARED ROAD FRONTAGE The Chair . opened the Public Hearing at 8 : 04 and stated the notice was filed and received byj1i, the Chair . in a timely fashion , The legal notice printed in the Ithaca Journal was read into the record . The Chairwoman continued : Mr . Shank also says ' that compliance of this ordinance would leave this lot useless for 11 constructing a house . The original use was to extend the Park was granted by the Zoning Board but turned down by the Town Board ' . This is an area variance reluest in an RB - 1 zone . The area variance criteria was read into the record as follows : In making its determination , the4zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted , as weighed against the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant . In making such determination the board shall also consider : 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 area variance ; 2 . whether the benefit Sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method , feasible for the applicant to pursue , other than an area variances 3 . whether the requested area variance is substantial ; 4w whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district ; and 5 . whether the alleged difficulty was self created . it Mr . Shank had nothing further to add ' at this time . QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD 11 A . Everett : There is a diagram enclosed . Is this a single family home that you would like to construct ? d G . Shank : Actually I would lik" e a duplex . f� w t G . Shanks Roughly 3 acres . ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . li A . Everett : How may y dwellings do o o �g I, y purpose to put on • it '' G . Shank : Actuallyif oll' You wer e to add it up square footage wise , it ' s !4c0 feet by 306 so close to 3 . A . Everett : - � Y Who many str _� ct ure sail G . Shanks One . A . Everett : There are 16 mobilell' homes which use the park driveway ? G . Shank : Yes . J . Jay : You own the park ? G . Shank % Yes , I do . A . Everett So you have enough "square feet . It is just the road frontage ? 111, G . Shank : That ' s correct . A . Everett : , Duplex , that ' s two _nits ? One family in each ? • G . Shank : Yes . That ' s an allowable use in that area . A . Everett request that H . Slater- explain why the variance is for 1 & ` in Section 753 . Mr . Slater stated for allowed uses for 125 feet of road frontage I include both to ensure compliance . A . Everetts. 11 The water and sewed: system . Is there any 11 thing located over here ? G . Shank : There is one well located over there . There 11 is two wells in the '' park and one is located i 11 n that vicinity . A . Everett : ' You assume that won ' t present a problem or anything ? G . Shank : No A . Everett : You ' ll leave all those trees intact ? G . Shank : Probably in the area , or at least most of them . • II ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 12 A . Everett : ) How long have you owned the park ? • G . Shank : A year and a half . A . Everett : Do you have any idea how many cars use that driveway per day ? Have you ever measured it ? r G . Shank : Roughly there ' s . probably , 28 people in there , probably I would say 24 use cars . The road is used every day , it has to be kept open all year long . A . Everett : How wide is that ? G . Shank : How wide is it ? The driveway it self ? ( yes ) It is 50 feet all the way back , but it ' s probably 30 feet to the road . I take mobile homes in and out of there and people pass mobile homes going by there . A . Everett : Where do you propose to locate it ? h G . Shank : Right about in the center , probably . A . Everett : And you will provide parking for the occupants of the new house ? G . Shank ; Yes . I don ' t know if that particular diagram • shows it , but there is a road that goes down there and that ' s (Ii!tite open . It goes down through that lot , the center of that lot . A . Everett : Is that a road ? B G . Shank : That ' s a road . I use to have a road going all the way to the end of that . I mean the 11 base is all there , just not used of course . The Board had no further questions and on inquiry from the Chair . there was no one present from the Public for this variance request . PUBLIC HEARING FOR E . & G • SHANK - CLOSED AT ' 8 : 14 PM • . • • • • • • w • • w • • • • . . • • . • WIN • . . • . . . . . . . • ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 13 1' PUBLIC HEARING - KENNETH & SUSAN MARASH - 8 : 15 PM ESTABLISH BUILDING LOT WITHIuNO ROAD FRONTAGE 175 GERMAN CROSS RDS . The Hearing was opened by the Chair reading the Public Notice which was published in the Ithaca Journal . The Chair . also stated the notice of appeal has '' been filed , and read the criteria for an area variance which the Board will use to consider as ', follows : 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 area variance ; c . whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method , feasible for the applicant to pursue , other than an area vary iance ; 3 . whether the requested area variance is substantials 4 . whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district ; and 5i whether the alleged difficulty was self created , which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals , but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance . The Qhaire noted the file contained the list of parties notified of the variance request . The applicants two page variance request was read along withufour letters from interested parties . ( The six photo copied pagesli, follow this page ) i The Chair also noted that the file contains a copy of the conservation easement and A map of the Marash property . At the request for additional information from Mr . Marash before questioning , Mr . Marash responded by stating he was sorry to add to the paper load and diastributed a copy of what he wanted to say to each Board Member ' and Town Attorney PeHiinse He stated he wrote it down because he would not remember it . The Chair questioned how much new information was added and received the answer " quite a bit " from Mrs . Marash . ( These pages as read into the recor,,d by Mr . Marash are • attached directly behind the above" six . ) it li ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 14 A . Everettm When we originally heardthis variance request we had one parcel 15 acres which was to be sold . That was the original one then you had a 48 acre parcel which was going to be retained by you . 1l And now you ' re . . . Mrs . Marash : The situation hasn " l';t changed . What you just did described as toll what the situation is ., The one in January ;was the situation just described . A . Everett : We were lead to bel 'Ijieve that this was the parcel in question lis that correct ? Mrs . Marash' : That ' s where a hous;'je could go . A . Everettap Then this was going!, to be retained by you ., { K . & S . Mar^ash : No . Mr . Marash The orange and the III'green portion is what we own . That ' s the 56l, acres that we own . A . Everett . " And you ' re going tol sell this ? Mr . Marash : No we are going to (,,sell the whole thing . The • easement restricts ithe location of the house to the green section . A . Everett : tin page 4 of the Land of Conservation Easement you have under " K " subdivide the property to areas o 11 ne , two , and three as shown on the attached sketch . " L " says : construct , later repair , replace or enlarge one additional singille family dwelling . " M " construct , later repair , replace or enlarge one additional single family dwelling , and I read that to believe you have one structure on here which is already . . . over here you have a structure , You can put another one there so that is two houses there . Area two Mr . Marash : You can have one house . A . Everett :, And one additional . Mr . Marash No . One additional ''' house on parcel two . C . Guttman , Esq . Parcel one is no longer owned by the 11 Marashs ' . That is property conveyed in 1990 to Schmidt and Brown . Parcel number one has one house on it . One additional house can be 11 constructed on parcel one . So the total parcel number one can have two houses . ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 15 A . Everett : ',; Would that house be serviced by the right - of - way ? N Mr . vuttmanE No that house would Illbe serviced directly off German Cross Roads . il It would not be serviced by the right - of - way !! because the right - of - way doesn ' t go through there . A . Everett : ' Area two ? V Mr . Guttmane Area two and area three are combined and are now owned by the Marashs ' . Area two and area three combined total 56 acres . In total there can be one holYse on area two and area three combined and it must be in area two . o One house in area two and no houses in area three , that is a restriction which is in the conservation easemer"it . It is a permanent restriction . It is 'ia restriction which the Marashs voluntarily on their own built into the consideration imposed on the land . Because they wishedilito put on a conservation easement on land they were very concerned about . The land that they own now are just parcels two and three . That 56 acres that Mr . Marash is referring to , and on this whole 56 acres according to the conservation easement only entitled to put one house and that ' s what they are requesting in this variance . Is the right to construct one single family house .T A . Everett : Was it your original intention to sell the whole 56 acres ? u Marashs : Yes . A . Everetts. Then why is this green and why is that orange ? Mrs . Marash : The green is area where the house can be built . The orange is the area where there can be no construction . Mr . Marash : We just wanted to differentiate visually what ir area could be buildable . A . Everett : I thought you told us you were going to keep the orange area ? T } I� i 7Yt ! ; � r1 '1 t?l � 1� h ? . . � 1G � ! � vP ! t . 1t htilr 1 • h 4 f v Cl ! qii o r v m i » :�e n � a d. / :. e + p y 1 � r } ! r y ;.^ y�. . .ry ., t * : . v It r t •: .«O that la that we e@n9Ubdivid Wo can oell parcel two separa;fie frnm parcel thr9eet We ' re S not intonding to do � thLit Out within the guidelines of the easement -that ' s allowed ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 16 III Mrs . IYlarash : If we were to sell it to Mrs . So and So and she owns that proper-• ty . She could then • subdivide it into one 15 acre piece and one 48 acre piece . But ;, still the 15 acre piece can have a house onlyit the 48 acre piece can never have a house on it . We have talked to people who have considered buying this land for a hunting preserve . Mrs . So & So could sell that 40 acre piece to a hunter . Even though they couldn ' t build a house on it . Our intention was not to subdivide it again . We want to sell it as a total ( . . 62 . . ) acres . Mr . Marash : We just didn ' t wantll to restrict a future owner from not beinlg able to subdivide it . Mrs . hlarash : We have never talked to anyone about just selling that 15 acme piece . l A . Everette All right you say you are going to sell the 6 acres now ? You 'are saying a house can go where ? K . & S . Maraash : In the green area , to the owner of parcel two . A . Everette What about the orange area ? • C . Guttmanal That can be sold with the parcel number two but , no matter how it is sold no house can ever be built on parcel number three . That is a restriction purposed by the conservation easement . A . Everett : There can be an additional house on parcel. number one ? C . Guttman : Yes there can but that parcel number one is no longer owned by the Marashs ' . A . Everett : Now do you intend to sell the entire 56 acres as one piece ? I Mr . Marash : That ' s our intention , yes . A . Everett : And now you ' re saying that if you sell that to a person , that person still has the right to subdivide the orange ? Is that correct ? Mr . Marash : '' No . They can separate the orange piece from the green piece butlthey can ' t divide the 11 orange piece any further than altered . Mrs . Marash : Or they can ' t divide the green piece either . • j ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 17 A . Everett They can separate orllliange from green . . . • h1r . Marash : From the 56 acre parlll'Icel there can be one subdivision into a sieparate parcel one and a separate parcel two . l'I A . Everett : ) And on one of those ' arcels one a house can be built . 11 Mrs . Marash : Only on the green . You don ' t have a choice . A . Everett : There is no point toll' subdivide the orange then . Mr . Marash : Unless You wanted toil sell it as a hunting preserve . A . Everett : Do you have anything "I"i else to say ? The Marashs ? G C . Guttman : I would like to make 'lla statement . My name is Charles Guttman . I am an attorney , o 'jffice is in the Clinton House and I am representing the Marashs ' at this time . I also 11 represented them in 1990 when the last real estate actions took place . Ken has already commented about the topography of the history of this land . I would like to make a few comments mostly about my • previous involvement in this matter , in I think , how the law affects this case . First of all with regardsto a conservation . easement it is a mechanilsm which provides permanent protection to the land it si elf . It has been a mechanism which has been approved byllthe State of New York government . As a mater of fact at this time the Department of Environmental Conservation in an acti11on with this for a couple 11 of year ' s is working on developing regulations to exactly legislate how Conservation Easements will be used to protect land use . The Department of Environmental Conservation has constantly approved these as a way of1protecting land . I think one of the key points waslis there can only be one house on this 56 acre parcel , and a conservation easement also provides additional protection to this land as to what can be done with it There ' s limits on timbering the land , I think its on agriculture of the land . It was designed to keep the land as close to its natural state asiipossible . What this does it protects the land which is one of the things which the zoning ordnance doesn ' t do . In the Zoning Ordnance you stated 11 this 5 criteria : lit.t1604Vs am 1liItl0 � !,. i n@ighborhood and tPi@ Board at it ' F@bPL(APV tic@ting gav@ a finding of faotso is ific �7l jr y stRtin there will be no undesirable effect on the neighborhood or the environment . That I thinks clearly deals with tt-rat Ilgi_► estinn , ll ill ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 18 C . Guttman con . Number ` was whether what is attempting to be obtained can be obtained by some method other than this variance whether• 11 it ' s feasile . Mr . Maash has stated b r that based on this topography and their attempts they Couldn ' t do it . I believe the Marashs coming back to this board month after month have shown that 'if there was an easy way they could do it they would not , this is not an easy procedure for them . They came back here waited for the full board to be present because this is the only method they could use . IOne of the criteria where the vat^ ianc'es is substantial . Clearly the Board has the authority to make a finding they could looking at it one way chose the aimo �_� nt of frontage they halve add to the amount of frontage they need . I submit there !iis another way this issue can be addressed and that has to do with the total 56 acres and one house on it . Based on that Mr . Marash referred to it as the spirit of the or-- dnance I beli ;l,'eve that it could easily be determined that it is not a substantial variance . Actually think about the zoning ordnance itself that is the proper finding -to make on this . The fth criteria was the statl'lue of an adverse effects 11 on physical " and environmental conditions and clearly the board is going to answer this question , I think the answer is clear there is no, adverse environmental effects . The fifth criteria is the statue 'jrefers to as the concept • of self - created hardship , and yes th ,lis is self - created . ii However the statue says consideration shall be relevant but: shall not n' ecessarily preclude the glt� anting of the area variance . It is the only criteria where the statue adds that additional language . In examining this I think you ' ve got to look at how the deficiency was self 'icreated . Originally they had the frontage which they later gave to Albert Juhl for no consideration in exchange for getting back the right - of -way . They came into my office in 1990 and , the first discussion we 11 had with th" em was two subjects . At 'that point they were intending to convey the property to Brown and Schmidt , parcel number one we just discussed , and a '1 ',! so at this same time to purpose a conservation easement . They were selling their residence , they were selling a valuaible piece of property , which is th' e property to Brown and Schmidt and they were also pI_Wposing a conservation easement . 'Which was a very complicated matter , I spent a long ti'; ime talking with them about thatilill Talking with members of the Land Trusts about this we spent a long time developing''ithe exact details of this conservation easement . A long time working on the details of the transfer of their residence to Brown and Schmidt . At that time we went through with this and I discussed with them in detail that , by imposing this conservation easement they were essentially„ making 56 acres worth much less then it was before hand . And they said they understoodlthis , they were obviously . not doing this as developers they wel;re doing it to protect the land . ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG . 19 C . Guttman cont . . We proceeded toward developing the conservation easement and closing ' on the transfer of theirllresidence , and at that time I looked at it in thinking any zoning problems because they still had the other frontage . I put the zoning issues out of my mind . They latercame in while this was absorbed over here and said " Oh by the way we ?Ire also going to trade a piece to Albert Juhl for the right - of - way and that will give ii us access , I said ok fine . At that point I should have looked at the whole issue again and said oh 'loh , I ' ll be creating a. problem . I was then as I am now theliAttorney for the City of Ithaca , I represent the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Ithaca , I work a lot with the Zoning Board , I make a mistake I can explain the details I was out of town for part of the time , my partner was in Florida to work . I am not 11 trying to give you excuses , it ' s embarrassing I make a mistake . I did not wonder by trading this land to Albert Juhl for no consideration they would have ! to end Lip coming to this board seeking a variance . There was no intent on their part to avoid or in any way evade the zonr'ing laws . Their feeling was they had already entered into a (contract to convey their residence the frontage that eventualjly became Albert Juhl ' s land would not provide adequate acceiliss that they were getting from a practical point of view better, access . Neither they or I looked at the Zoning effects . I should have , I did not that was a mistake I make , after that thel"y now have a self - created hardship . However the statue says that .just because it ' s self created does not preclude you . You ' 'ive got to look at the five criteria and actually the statue doejsn ' t say you base your discussion ion th. e five criteria . Th;O statue actually says you balance something else . I am not go�'i� ing to take long if I can quote you the statue . The Board of ((;Zoning Appeals paraphrasing shall balance benefits to the applicant if the variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the ne'!lighborhood or communit , That is the balancing test . Benefit) to the applicant compared to the health , safety and welfare ofl the neighborhood . Now if you look at' that balancing test I Submit everything is on one side . The benefit to the applicant 'Ilis clear . The Marashs want this variance it will benefit them , it will give them no 11 detriment to grant this variance . On the other side what is the detriment to the health , safety , '! and welfare of the community ? , This wouldn ' t latter make a determination there would be no adverse effect . So if there is no adverse effect on one side and a big benefit on the other side I submit that the whole balancing test is completely one sided . What I would like ' to submit to the Board is a letter from Shelby Damskey he is special counsel for the State of New York Legislative Commission of Pural Reso', Urces . I have five copies r. $• F .. y r 3. '. i T F e i f4 F4 r . A '. •• A. _ r 7 �.• i� i' 'a � t +-t �- � 't :z r.., 7 SZ i7' C7 ? ! 4- F k1 ► 'G ►'1 w' !P -U k C,3' [+ VJ '. 4,1 l:A S;A r 4 „} k± ti l.i 43 l:'1 NA 4i A i i 4+ i. I '� cr r;tii ! 1 s„" wookitI4 with Mil" ,, Dgmakoy uti hamu@g lido th z a n m ordnance for • the gerlerml° city rulos . III ZRA 9 / 7 / 93 FAG . 20 C . Guttman cont . . . It effects city , however what they were doing in terms of area variances is exactly the same language which they put in the general city law that is now in the town law . I refer you to the first paragraph of page 2 . I can very quickly quote it: , it ' s two sentences I believe . ' As t 'o the new area variance standards which were to the city lawl1which are the same standards which apply to you . The only test imposed is that a Zoning Board of Appeals take into consideration . the benefit; to the applicant if the variance is granted as weighed against: the detriment to the health , safety , 1Iand welfare of the neighborhood community . This is followed by a number of considerations to be used in making a determination . ' Mr . Damsky is the individual who wrote the law that is in front: of you which is the Town Law . He wrotelthe Town Law , he wrote the City Law , he is probably the expert in the State of New York on Zoning Ordinances , he is counsel to the State of New York Assemb" ly in dealing with these Tissues , He says that is the only test we should have to impose . And if you look at; that test you ' ve got a large benefitlito -the applicant an one side and no" detriment on the other slide . I would like to just cover thisI'il,very , very briefly one has to do with the issue of residence . And I think the board has said previo; usly they are concerned ahbout opening up flood gates . If this variance is granted they have to grant variances to everybody else and I submit that this is completely untrue . New York State gjjrants the powers , the • authority to grant variance , to establish boards of zoning boards of appeals whose purpose is to grant variances . That is the purpose of this board . Only lin a proper case of course . I submit to grant this vari4ance the only precedence that you will establish is that if someone comes in with a 56 acre parcel of land which is protected by a conservation easement and they want to put one hoiuse on it that that is the precedence you ' re creating . I submit that to the Town of Dryden that ' s not a very dangerous p'lrrecedence . You can find a lot of 56 acre parcels where it is going to be horrible to put one house then you should be concer^ nlled , that ' s absurd . Here the conservation easement as its imposed . . protects the land much more so than the Zoning Varianc;ie would other wise do so and therefore there is no , there won'j' t be no opening up of flood gates' because you ' re not goingito find anther case that comes that similar to this . I submii't what the law says to You , you have to balance what the st ''atue says . Using that balancing test I submit the question;1is absolutely clear . You ' ve got every benefit on one sided, no detriment on the other . u �p ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 FAG . 21 The Chair asked if there was anyone else who would like to address this issue ? My name is Tammy Brown , I live at . . oil German Cross Road . I ' own parcel number one . At the, time that all of this hap 'IPened when the Marashs were making this whole decision to put the conservation easement on the property and they were also selling land to us and at the same time we wer'; e all involved in ii developing the conservation easement , writing it up and making decisions about it . We were as much a part of making that as they were we werellinvolved with those discussions . It was a real complicated time everybody seems to be indicating how complicated it was for us and I guess ;because we all feel like we don ' t know why we missed some things . I am hearing things tonight that I am a little ' confused about , and I also wanted to ,just mention something that came up when the eriginal was put before the board . What I was just trying to understand was , that the right - of - way goes through our property . First it goes through the Jili property on'i the original piece and then it goes through our property for something like 1500 feet . Again we didn ' t own the land when we set that all up . Uo for us it was something we had to envision without ever having lived on the property . At that time I call and talked with the Zone Officerjl, and I asked him what that meant , what might happen if the Zoning Board agreed to . this . He said that one possibility was you could make the statement that the whole way into their property that they say they want to sell , all do it !Gthrough the right - of - way . That was upsetting' to me because when we purchased the property we were lead to believe and told that there was a good chance that anybody that bought that property would go in through thel, rail road bed . Which I brought up the first time we talked about this and that land is owned by NYSE & G . We were told that the people wouldn' t want to have to make an actual driveway through the same right - of - way and they thought the people wouldn ' t probably do that because it is shorter and wider there ' s no problem with that . 9) o `we assu 11 med that that right - ,of' - way was a legal , just al! legal issue . And that is still my concern that if that is 'I; the way it is stated that that ' s the only way people can get through that they have no right to try to use that rail road right - of -way . That is my concern . My other% concern is that . . . , II A . Fvarett : ' Nc^ use ma would yr? tj I' l }{ e t � � tr r � 3rify that c,a i y Y` rather thgn the Now ft l,i $ bate aS end Electric Right °« Ofmwayv . � . especially for emergency vehicles ! l i ZPA 9 / 7 / 93 FV . 22 i Pi . Slater : , I will tell you what the building code says . The Building rode says that when you have a permanent structurellthat is located more than two hundred feet from any public road shall be the charge of the person having the jurisdiction over tte project which will be me , and probably the fire chief of jurisdiction to determine what a Suitable driveway is for emtfFfgency services . Where it would go I ' m not prepared to say . First of all I guess you probably could apply to NYSE & G for a right to use that . It would be up to them if they wanted to grant it or not . If it were a re4ular lot where it had 125 feet of frontage we would pick a spot on 11 that that regular lot , or approve a spot that the applicant would ';!Iselect . Where there is this right ^ of - way I really can ' t comment with out more knowledge . Mrs . Frown ': ' I want to make it clear that we were aware that there was a possibility that someone could do that but the believe was someone would probably use the railroad right - of -way because it was so much easier . The other thing was that I have never heard before until tonight that parcels green and orange could be separated . i1 I am wondering how people are going target to the orange parcel if it is separated from the green . Our understanding was always that if anybody was going to go through !ithat right - of - way it would be one familykonly . Now I am hearing that it might be one family and it could be , I don ' t know . Mrs . Marash I don ' t know why you' don ' t know that . Mrs . Browne Maybe because my 1 i flee was disgruntled . A . Everett : Mr . Marash that orange parcel will be serviced by this road too , is that correct '? Mr . Marash : Yes . i Mrs . Marash : A house still can ' t igo up , no one can live there . A . Everettq But logging , . . . C . Guttman : No , logging and graal'ing are both prohibited by the conseryation . �Ra i ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 PG . 23 Mr . Marasha They are not prohibllgited there restricted to sustainable methods '11 Sustainable , ecological , • balanced methods . I C . Guttman : . There ' s prohibition 'I� of commercial logging of that area . A . Everett : There will be trucks , tractorsq vehicles using that right - ofljway to get back , possibly there may be . Mr . Marash The key here I think is to deal with the mechanics concern is a requirement that all traffic must use thlRt right - of - way . That right - of - way is the only access to the property . What we ' re saying is currently that is the access , III but sometime in the future somebody could negotiate with NYSE & G to _yet that access along the rail road . NYSE & G may sell their right - of - way to somebody else who may then convey a right - of - way , an easier right - of -way to another part of theIIparcel . But we didn ' t own that land we di 11 d negotiate with the Juhl ' s because we could . So we do have a right - of - way but it 'is not the only access . I would be unhappy to 'il, have the board restrict • that and say that that can be the only access . Mrs . Marash : There is that possibility that NYSE & G would grant use of their right - of - way which would mean that the one that we are talking about would never be ttsed ,� J . Jay : I don ' t think basedlll'llon what we are sitting here thinking abo �_tt �Itoday , the NYSE & G thing is irrelevant to us , l when I think about that right - of - way it ' s the only possibility . A . Everett: Is there anything else Mr . Marash ? So you l are expressing concern about the road , people using it , it accessing the orange parcel is that correct ? Mrs . Brown : I never understood illl,t before , in all of our discussions I never understood it before . So it would be ,just onei family , it would be one family and anyone else who ( . . . ? . . ) especially if it is I!a hunting resort . In • d hi tt � � It WoUld only be in 'the eV@nt that the Parcels wRr, e sIRparat °Rd ? Wouldn ' t you agrea ? Mrs . Prowri :i Yps . �II ZBA 9 - 7 -93 PG . 24 ' , A . Everett . Fast _cring , gt az in g , II . . . . etc . • M . Varvayanis : They can do all of that now anyway . J . Jay : If I understand Mahlon , that permission has already been given . ) A . Everett : The traffic associalled with that those activities which she obviously concerned with . j hI . Varvay � nl� is : That traffic can hal`ppen today no matterwhat we decide . We ' re niot deciding if he can put a road in the right - of -way is there . He can drive a tractor through if he wants to . If you put a house here you are less likely to have logging and everything that you ' re worried about . M . Perkins : , Madam chairman are you still in Ithe public portion of your meeting ? ( indicated yes ) I would like to make a statement just so the board is not mislead withh respect to the standard implied . If you look at the provisions of the Town Law 67C subdivision 3 you will not find theiword balance used . Do • not be confused that it is a balance " that you must reach or that will carry your decision . What { you are required to do is take into consideration the benefit Ito the applicant if the variance is granted as weighted , not 'llbalanced , as weighed against the detriment to the health , lsafety , and welfare of the community . And the statute requllires you to consider those five factors that have been discUssed . So please don ' t be mislead al ) &ut that there ' s a balanciling , there ' s a weighing test cer-- tainly , and the statue says you shall take into consideration , those aren ' t optionai � things to discuss . The Chair . inquired if there were other questions and as none were asked closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 20 PM . � I IL I PUBLIC HEARIN CLOSED ll • FIVE MINUTE RECESS i III j ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PG , 25 DELIBERATION FUR THE MARASH VARIANCE Before oral deliberation members dellliber;ated and wrote • 11 findings to be discussed . At the request of the Chair . MARE: VARVAYANIS read his listed of findings which he had written : �I ( 1 ) THE LOT CONFORMS IN EVERY WAY EXCEPT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE , ( 2 ) THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN FRONTAGE IS SIGNIFICANT . ( 3 ) IFIE PROBLEM WAS SELF - CREATED WHEN THE LAND WITH ADEQUATE FRONTAGE WAS TRADED FUR " A RIGHT - OF - WAY . ( 4 ) THE RIGHT - UF - WAY WAS NECESSITATED BY TOPOGRAPHICAL. IMPEDIMENTS . ( 5 ) THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBIORHOOD WOULD NOT CHANGE , 11 IN FACT A HOUSE WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE VISIBLE OFF THE F' ROF' ERTY . ( 6 ) I T WUULD BE IMPOSSIBLE pl TO BUILD ON THIS LOT UNLESS THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED . A . EVERETT : • ( 1 ) THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY OF NIiO ROAD FRONTAG E WAS SELF CREATED BY THE MARAIHS WHEN THEY I9OLD ALL THE ROAD FRONFNUE 01= THE ORIGINAL 85 ACRE PARCEL . THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN 1975 . THE MARASH SOLD SIX ACRES WITH ROAD FRONT4A6E IN 19867 IN 1990 THEY SOLD ANOTHER 16 ACRE PARCEL WITH F- HUNTAGE , IN 1990 A 4 ACRE GLUT WAS TRADED , ( 2 ) THE RLQUESTLD AREA VARIANCEi�IIS SUBSTANTIAL SINCE THE MARASH PROPERTY HAS NO ROAD FRONTAGE . ( 3 ) AIV 18 FUUT RIGHT - UF - WAY WILL 'I', PE USED TO CONNECT THE IL PRUE, ER;T' Y IN QUEST I UIV TO GERMAN CROSS ROADS , THIS PROPOSED ACCESSSTHROUGH TO THE MARASH PRUPPERTY EXITS GERMAN CROSS ROAD UIV THE JUHL F ' ROF' ERTY COMES THROUGH THE SCHMIDT - BROWN PARCEL AND CUNNLC `I` � FO THE MARASH PROPERTY , ANOTHER HOME PLUS THE PACK, 45 ACRES WILL USE THE ACCESS ROAD . ( 4 ) CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED PY THE �IBUARD MEMBERS ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENCE BY GRANTING T' F-IE VARIANCE WITH NO ROAD FRONTAGE EXIST , ,.. :.., } .. sw ,j ttt:_ ., a �.i It to G I i tv ir e o i { ' ) NEIGHBORHOOD UP P Uk1' AND OPPOSITION WAS READ rF2UtH LETTERS TU JJAE BUARD , UIVE NEIGHBOR APPEARED TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO TI...IE STATE OF ( , „ ARRA I LAMENT . . . ) . ZBA 9 / 7 / 93 PGa, 26 JOSEPH JAY • ( 1 ) IN RESPECT TO NUMBER ONE WHIETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CI-iANGE WILL BE PRODUCED IIV THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ?GH BORHOOD ? I �S% AY NONE OF THAT WOULD CHANGE . IT ' S BAC K I'AND OUT OF WAY , O ONE WOULD EVE iiN KNOW IT WAS THERE . ( w ) WHETHER THE BENEFIT SOUGHT iBY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVE IN SOME OTHER WAY ? I SAY NO . EVEN THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE T' FIE GEOGRAPHY OF THE LAND�,�f WOULD NOT ALLOW IT YOU COULDN ' T USE IT' TO GET BACK THERRE . ( 3 ) TI...IE REQUEST UI = THE AREA VARIIJ ANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL ? YES , 125 WELT IS SUB ( T' ANTIAL . II ( 4 ) WHETHER THE PRUF=, OSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE 11 EF [ ECT UN THE PHYSICAL OR ENV I RUNMEN 'TAL CUND I T I ONS IN THE NE I GHLAUHHOUD : ONCE AGAIN I AM GOING 'T" O SAY SAME AS NUMBER ( 1 ) NU , I DON ' T BELIEVE IT WILL BECAUSE IT ' S b6 ACRES , ONE HOUSE , 1 'T " S NUT DOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ( 5 ) WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF - CREATED ? I 11 BELIEVE IT' WAS BUT iT WAS AN ERROR BY HIS ATTORNEY , A . LAMUTTE • SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THINGS THAT JOE HAS ALREADY REAL) WHERE WE ANE DIPPERENT' , I DID SIGHT THIS ACTION I GUESS IT ' S NUMBER ( 4 ) IN THIS THING FROM THE S .TIATE : THE PROPOSED PREVENTIVE IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THJE PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THAT ' S SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT . A . E . Is it necessary to explain the alleged difficulty in detail the way I did ? I am1asking Mahlon , is it necessary to describe the alleged difficulty of no road frPlitaf.13a was wolf CrIvA�tod in Oxtail that I did ? Mr . Perkins : I am not sure that it 8is necessary but it doesn ' t hurt anything it provides background and summarizes the record . 'The conclusion is the same it is a self - created hardship . Nobody disagreed on that issue . A . E . So , can we accept that : The alleged difficulty of no road frontage which was self createdlby the Marash when they sold off all the road frontage from the original 85 acre property , and then I went on to say when they sold and how much they sold . A . L . I think that that statement should point out the frontage would not provide access . r III lid ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 PG . 27 11 . v . When you said traded , you didn ' t say traded for what . You should say traded for the ( right - of - way . J . in Am ; I understanding correctly' the finding we want to relate to the criteria in any case ? Mr . Perkins : The Statue says you 'ishall take those criteria into consideration , obliviously you can come up with any other findings that you want that are supported by the record . I 11 think it is important that in your deliberation , determination thAt you address each of those thing % , So that it is clear that you did address them as the statue requires . A . E . The requested area varianceliis substantial since the 11 Marash property has no roadl, frontage . All agreed and had nothing to add . An I felt describing the eighteen foot right - of - way g ei g t right of way was and what it did was important . To show that it exit the road on some other property . l J . J . That ' s already in the record . They can use that as a motor cycle path if they want to right now . A . L . That already exist . That is a fact , we ' re not establishing the right - of - way . • A . E . I think it is important . J . J . Why ? It is already there . A . E . It ' s what this variance ll request is all about . The right - of - way . A . L . No ., It ' s not . J . J . The variance is about the roII' ad frontage , A . E . The absence of road frontage" , what are they going to do ? A . L . They have the right - of - way n" ow . A . E . Yes , and I think it is important to mention it how they intend to access this property and how it is described . Mr . Perkins : Although the right - of - way clearly is in existence and its location is adeqttat', ely described by which yS; " * 10ggwd' o 'k A W114r4 Ilj k t r r 'i dy + tOd f6t; it If ^ diueJ iri . li Uhdet^ the tuvi % ont stA0 • of facts all of the thingAnne said are correct , what I thinly you need tO b61lsider� is that uhderw thlo durµretyt s � Atp Of faett although the rightmof ® way exists it doesn ' t service any houses . It `can if you allow it to . 11 ZBA 9 - 7 -93 FAG . 28 A . E . Ju "st state that it does not IIII service any structure at this time ? Mr . Plerk . inse It ' s what ever you come up with . It is clear that it is in existence . A . L . What ' s - the purpose ? M . V . If you want to through it in , through it in . J . J . It ' s a fact , not a f inding . Mr . Perkins : It ' s a finding of fact is what it is referred il to . What you are relying upon to make your decision . M . V . Obviously if they had no right - of -way we wouldn ' t be thinking about it at all . Right ? A . Everett asked Mr . Perkins if the previous concern which was stated by former board member Dominic Pordonaro and herself could be used as a finding ( concerning setting a precedence if the variance was granted ) ? Was this hearing to night considered a continuance ? hlr . Perkins stated that he thought Mr' . Guttman considers this a continuance and that the Board caniput down as a finding anything they have a consensus about .'i� • A . L . % J . J . and M . V . stated setting a precedence was not .a concern . A . E . Discussion on neighborhood Support and opposition which was read from letters to the board . ' One neighbor appeared to express opposition to the conditions ": J . J . Felt consensus was fairly balanced .111 A . E . We do have to acknowledge this one neighbor who is opposed to . . J . J . The nei hbor is opposed g pp ed to il,t but she has already given , as I Understood it sh'le has already given permission to do it . A . L . The' right - of - way exists . 1� The Chair . „ had Mark reread his findings and the board discussed the fact that while the Chai�ir felt it was necessary to add the fact that the owners at onl',e time had adequate road frontage by .selling and / or trading their property the hardship was self created ; the other three board members did not feel this would have changed anything , as the right - of - way due to topoyr-- aphical nature would still haven been the access to the property , I� N ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 FAG . 29 III , A . Le The proposal is designed to protect the physical and environmental conditions ofuthe property ie : see conservation easement . 11 + in Mr . Perkins . (Vick , is what you ' re getting at is the existing of the easement protects the over development or over use of the land by that right - of - way ? A . L . I am addressing Number 4 , 6ead criteria ) I am merely saying that it does not . That those issues are protected by the terms and conditions that are spelled out in that environmental easement . Mr . Perkins : That addresses the use of the land and they are, not asking relief from that . All they are asking is to place one home there . If what you ' re saying is then that the 11 placing of one home there along with 'Ithe protection afforded by the easement , that there can + t bell anymore homes there means that you can answer this question the way you want . Is that what you were getting at ? A . L . Yes . If you are trying to improve the manner in which I addressed number four . J . J . I think I see what . . . the idea is zero road frontage , 50 homes woUld make a big decision , would be a different effect than only one home . hlr . Perkins : I think it also goers toward whether there is a precedence being set . Mr . Guttman '', suggested and argued sure there is a 'precedence being set : Yo °u come to us with 56 acres no road frontage ; a deeded right - of - Tway and a conservation easement we may look at it favorablelll', if that is the way you 're inclined to go . u A . L . I think I made that almost !'identical statement back at the time of the original hearing . 11, The Chair . read the following as the , findings : 1 . `Fhe alleged difficulty of no road frontage was self - created by the Marashs when theli;y sold all the road frontage of„ the original 85 acre pro " erty . The land was purchased in 197b . The Cllarashs soldl, 6 acres with road 11 frontage in: 1986 . In 1990 they soldlanother 16 acre parcel with frontage . In 1990 , a 4 acre plat was traded away for the 18 foot right - of - way . m The requested area variance is slllubstantial since the Marash property has no road frontagej. The lot conforms in ',u ZBA 9 - 7 -93 FAG , 30 3 , An 131 night -• of - way will be usedlll, to connect the property in question to German Cross Road . This proposed access route • to the Mara "sh property exits German Cross Road on the Juhl property ; cuts through the Schmidt - Drown parcel and connects with the hlar, ash property . A home plus the back 45 acres will -tse the access road . It does not service any structure at present . 4 , Concern was expressed by one Board Member about setting a precedent when granting a variance if no road frontage exists . 50 Neighborhood support and opposition was read from letters if to the Board . One property owner appeared to express opposition to the development of thelright - of -way , 60 The right - of -way was necessitated by topographical impediments : 7 . The character of the neighborhood would not change . The house would not be visible from off the property . A . The mmnIIspryation 7mt omorit by it 111tmvAms pv + ots (:� t4 the ume of the land and limits development of the land to one dwelling , See Conservation Easement . �I 9 , It appears to be infeasible to build on this lot if the variance is not granted . Joseph Jay moved that bases on the findings that the variance for 125 feet of road frontage relieve be granted , Motion second by Alan LaMotte . Discussion : Vote : YES ( 3 ) J . Jay ; A . LaMotte and M . Varvayanis NO ( 1 ) A . Everett ABSTAINED ( 1 ) C . Hanley Ni VARIANCE GRANTED DELIBERATION FOR GEORGE AND ELUIEN SHANK — 10 : 25 111 J , in I do have one question , will , this be one entity as the, trailer park and the dup'jex . I know you own the same , one tax parcel . What i'happens if this is granted and builds the duple 'IIx and two years from now he wants to sell the duplex ''end keep the trailer park or "vise versa ? ZBA 9 - 7 - 9 PG,s . 31 H . Slater You couldn ' t do it Y 9 by the general rules and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance 503 , you can not create a • non conforming use . Well it ' s not conforming now but to break one non conforming uses into two nonconforming uses would be a violation of that section . Even though it says you can ' t 11 created anon conforming use in an attempt to create a conforming use . I don ' t see how he could do it . Make it a condition of approval that it must remain intact and that he must come back for further relieve . J . J . You are aware of that , thatllllit would have to be sold as one parcel ? A . L . What he could do to requirellladditional rights would be his problem . Mr . Shank I just want to makejlthe other half usable . J . J . It ' s one parcel right now ? Mr . Shank Right but Could not III extent the park according to the "Gown Ordinance . C . Hanley : 'The original idea was to extend the park and that was granted by the Zoning Boardlbut turned down by the Town Board ? Mr . 'Shank Yes , because the Town Ordnance was brought up • as an issue even though it had been done twice in the past . The Town Ordnance states you have tol have municipal water and sewer . 8 It was determined that while the variance was granted for additional trailers on the pads as requested the special permit which was required by the Town Board was denied . H . Slater stated it was determined that expansionof any trailer park required a special permit and was no longer a variance issue . ,I A . E . requested findings . . . J . J . 1here was no neighborhood opposition . Co Flo Do you own the vacant field behind . trlr . Shank That lot belongs to II;! Lucente . A . E . He has a nice tree buffer . 1 -I . Slater The land behind is Part of the 1345 acres is { "L f „ • III ZPA 9 -7 - 93 FG . 32 A . E . Anyone else . . . Mr . Shank regi_tests a variance to build a duplex dwelling on a 3 acre parcel1� which will be serviced) by • a driveway to his mobile home park which has 50 feet of road frontaC E . 'There was no neighborhood opposition . a . Because of Town Law the applicant can not enlarge the mobile home park . The duplex will add to the parks income . 4 . Cherie is a large pine tree buffer between the lot and the roarl . MARK AR VARVAYANIS MOVED THAT BASED ON THE FINDINGS THE BOARD 11 APPROVE MR . SHANKS APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE . II^ SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH JAY I III VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett , C . Hanley ,,) J . Jay , A . LaMotte and M . . Varvayanis �r NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) II ' 9 DELIBERATION FOR ROBERT ARMSTRONG ,1 . J . he sketch he has is a lot nic ii ler than what he ' s got now . A . E . Expressed concern with location being close to the road She walked and measured and stated it 'j4was approx . six feet from the edge of the roadway . A woodshed is one thing , however a play loft for three kids is1another , and he has plenty of room on the property . J . J . I thinks it is an eye sore the wayit is now and it will make it look better and planning ; the shingles will keep with the character of the house . 4 A . E . The point is it is a danger tol; have this structure near the road with kids . w hl . V . It is behind several trees ands a fence . A . E . Flow long will those trees last )? ht . V . A lot longer then that building will . A . L . If you move the wood pile can you guarantee us that the kids would ,not be playing up there anyway ? • 11 I� I;I ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 FAG . 33 I A . E ; , Well they probably will, be plying where the wood shed • and the play loft are . it J . J . He probably should never have mentioned a play loft , Just a roof over the thing , but I don ' t care if the kids play there . P A . L . For ' 1l we know they are playing there now . C . F-I . Henry what is the thinking behind the set back ? H . Glaterq The 780 foot setback ? Illt ' s only an opinion not fact I would think it would be for vehicular and pedestrian safety Use of the road . In other words you don ' t have thinks up to the edge of the road so that vehicular and pedestrian passersby have problems negotiating "or seeing what is Prevalent to driving down the ' road or, walking . C . FI . Does the Town of Dryden Line go down both sides of Turkey Hill Road ? H . Slater : It is all the Town of Dryden J . J . "I ' Vie house is 52 feet from the center . There is only 9 feet difference between the shed and the house . I A . E . If he could position it back farther for the safety of the kids . • C . H I have to tell you that it really bothers me that you can Put UP a temporary strut:A ure that looks rather . . . . then come 11 back in two years and say ' gee I build this really curdy looking structure now if I have a variance I can make it look pretty . A . L . Are you insinuating that this ! was pre - planned ? C . H . I am , not insinuating anything l, in fact it ' s immaterial to me . I would like to extend my barl`In but I can ' t because I am constrained on one side , do I P �_� M ram shackled thing on it then come back to you in a couplellof years and say this is crummy , let , me build a new one . I don ' t want to get into this precedence argument again but there ins apparently a reason why we have a 70 foot set back line . There are other houses along that road , , fairly substantial houses , 11 new housing , how much of this are we going to chuck out . A . L . He has options . When people dlon ' t have options , that ' s 11 one thing but he could situate that all over that property . It shouldn ' t, he situated there . • ZBA . 9 -7 - 93 PG . 34 J . J . He has a wood pile there , it is legal . He want ' s to make it look better . Looking at the sketches he showed and the shingles and what he wants to dolthere , if I was a neighbor what would I rather have him do ? Leave it like that or put a roof on it and make it a str ucture . Co H . Is that what we ' re down too ? II That ' s kind of like black mail . The Chair read the follow : 1 . Mr . Armstrong requests a variance to build a woodshed / playloft 42 feet from the road center and 6 feet from 11 the road shoulder . Concern was expressed by one Board member 11 about the safety of the children when playing near the building and the road . c . Other areas on the 20 acres could ii be used on which to build the structure , A . L . I want to leave this children1playing thing out of it . A . E . Well if we are suppose to protect the health , safety and welfare of the community residence , I think that includes the children . A . L . A lot of kids play in the road , are we going out and . . . . A . E . 'To put a play loft 6 feet from the shoulder of the road • is bad news . h 11 . V . Do you want to take the play loft out of the variance we offer him '? Say you can put a roof on it but leave the second floor off ? A . L . I am inclined to agree with the chair that there are other options . it C . F-I . Basically the guy doesn ' t want to dig four new post hexer . li Me V . I would like to contest the 6 feet from the shoulder . A . Em I went there . M . V . If you have the house that is ',; near there , a barn that is down the road just as close , trees that are even closer to the road , you are not creating a new ',; hazard by putting it there . C . F-10 That is were we disagree . I am not convinced by that that the ordnance wasn ' t meant to address that fact . We have a lot of houses like that and they don ' t want to make them any more cluttered . ZDA 9 - 7 - 93 PG . 35 IF A . Just because there is a housejiand a barn there , new • structures should be back where theylibelong . The Chair- continued to read : 3 . The request is substantial in that 70 ' from the center of the read is required and 42 feet is the actual amount . A . L . Summarized that the benefit could be sought b some 9 Y other method and the cost was not substantial . The Chair reread the three findings . CHARLES HANLEY MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FOR MR . ARMSTRONG BE DENIED . , 11 SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY ANNE EVERETT VOTE YES ( b ) A . Everett , C . Hanley ;1 J . Jay , A . LaMotte and • M . Varvayan i s NO ( 0 ) AB8TAINED ( 0 ) Following the deliberations the Chair . reopened the 11 meeting to conclude the matey pending before the Board . The Chair submitted to the Board thellproposed Town Law which addressed attendance and edUcationaliiopportunities for Board Members and asked for discussion . Mr . LaMotte requested time to Cortplete a draft for a resolution to be submitted to the Tow11 n Board Mr . Jay stated he agreed with Mr . 0 LaMotte that the members were here to serve the 'Town , members Iiattendance was good , if one missed a lot of meetings they woLldn ' t want to be here in the first place . He did have reservations concerning the educational training . • r� . NI ZBA 9 -7 -93 FAG . 34 J . J . He has a wood pile there , it is legal . He want ' s to make it look better . Looking at thelsketches he showed and • the shingles and what he wants to do there , if I was a neighbor what would I rather have him 11 do ? Leave it like that or put a roof on it and make it a striucture . C . H . Is that what we ' re down too ? i� That ' s kind of like black mail . The Chair read the follow : 1 . Mr . Armstrong requests a variance to build a woodshed / playloft 42 feet from the road center and 6 feet from the road shoulders Concern was expressed by one Board member about the safety of the children when playing near the bLtilding and the road . 2 . Other areas on the 20 acres could 11 be used on which to build the structure . A . L . I want to leave this childrenl1playing thing out of it . A . E: . Well if we ' are suppose to protect the health , safety and welfare of the community residence , I think that includes the children . 11 l A . L . A lot of kids play in the road , are we going out and . . . . A . E . 1' o put a play loft 6 feet from the shoulder of the road • is bad news . M . V . Do you want to take the play llfoft out of the variance we offer him ? Say you can put a roof on it but leave the second floor off ? A . L . I am inclined to agree with the chair that there are other options . C . H . Basically the guy doesn ' t want to dig four new post holes . i M . V . I would like to contest the 6 feet from the shoulder . A . E . I went there . M . V . If you have the house that i s 1, near there , a barn that is down the road .just as close , trees that are even closer to the road , you are not creating a new !Ihazard by putting it there . Co H . That is were we disagree . I am not convinced by that that the ordnance wasn ' t meant to address that fact . We have a lot of houses like that and they don ' t want to make them any more Cluttered . • ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 PG . 35 A . k , Just because there is a housed', and a barn there new structures ' should be back where they belong . ' The Chair continued to read .. V 3 . `T' he req'' uest is substantial in thj'at 70 ' from the center of the road is required and 42 feet is 'IIthe actual amount . A . L . Summarized that the benefit cilould be sought by some other method and the cost was not substantial . The Chair reread the three findings . 11i' II CHARLES HANLEY MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FOR MR . ARMSTRONG BE DENIED . SECOND T' O THE MOTION WAS MADE BY ANNE EVERETT p, VOTE YES ( `; ) A . Everett , C . Hanley, , J . Jay , A . LaMotte and • M . Varvayanis NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) dl Fallowing the deliberations the I�C, hair , reopened the meeting to ,, conclude the matey pendi,ing before the Board . The Chair submitted to the Board the' proposed Town Law which addressed attendance and educational l, opportunities for Board Members and asked for discussion . Mr . LaMotte requested time to col'implete a draft for a resolUtion ' to be submitted to the Town Board Mr . Jay' stated he agreed with Mr . LaMotte that the members were here to serve the Town , membersll attendance was good , if one missed , a lot of meetings they wouldn ' t want to be here in the first place . He did have reserv;lations concerning the �? rit,� c^ 3t 'ic+ n �� ] training . • ZBA 917 -93 PG . 3E Mr . Hanley stated it was frighte ,n�'ning if anyone like him could get on this board and make decj'isions and no one knows why . Stated he had no problem with 'educational classes , we sit here and we ' re not even sure we ' r^ e writing proper findings , and thinks it is a good idea if you are going to serve to know what you are talking about . I think if you are going to serve on any Town you have Ia responsibility to know what is going on . Mr . Jay agreed . Mr . LaMotte stated the question Iwe raised isn ' t it feasible for Mahlon to meet with us just as he has recently when there are significant changes and update us . Our objection is another layer of red tape , another law , this thing has been functioning for a quarter of a century with out this , why suddenly have we got to hay„ve it . Mr . Hanley agreed he wished hand shakesstill counted , and a man ' s word was his word , but it is so much more complicated now . We had Mahlon here and that screw up ( discussion of the case ) dragged out the Marash thing for six months . These things happen because we don ' t know the ins and outs . I wish it was a simple world but it ' s not anymore . Half of these guys are going to drag you into Court and if I am going to have the Town defend my actions I would hope that they would be informed actions . Mr . Slater mentioned that by resolution at the last Town Hoard meeting Atty . Perkins and Chair . A . Everett were authorized to work out the educational or in service training program which would allow you to be continually learning about the zoning process , not just when something changes but the bases for - why it is today . Mr . Jays objection is to the education training being mandated and wanted to know if there wasany way that R . Roberts couir ld address this before the Zoning Board to see about getting someone from the Stated ( Martin Luster ) to discuss the law on Use Variance . A . Everett stated our purpose on I the Zoning Board is to 11 protect the integrity of the Zoning Laws . M . Varvayanis disagreed and said " if that were the case we would not be here . A . LaMotte stated the variance process is a very intricate process of the zoning law and our purpose for being here is to provide relief from the zoning law not to enforce it . J p 7 ZBA 9 - 7 - 93 PG . 37 La . A . lyla �tte offered the fallowing r esvl 1 �.► tion . Whereas the I. etter from Attorney ,IPerkins dated August 19 , 1993 indicated the Town Board setting a proposed Town Law establishing attendance requirement for members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and require attendance at certain training sessions . The feel of the Board is that educational sessions with the Town Attorney are adequate to keep us informed . Agree that other educational meetings should be encouraged but not mandated . The attendance record 'jof Board Members have ' been excellent . Second to the motion by Joseph Jay . VOTE YES ( 3 ) A . LaMotte , J . Jay and M . VarvaY anis Pi NO ( 2 ) A . Everett and C . Hanley { The Chair stated that she would ask Mahlon to present it to the board with this resolution MEETING ADJOURNED Ii �I ;i STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS • TOWN OF DRYDEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the matter of the appeal of KENNEI'H & SUSAN MARASH for the property located at GERMAN CROSS ROAD CERTIFICATE ( Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 71-1-29 . 42 ) I , ANNE EVERETT , chairperson of the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , do hereby certify , pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision lapproved by such board on September 7 , 1993 • Dated : Dryden , New York ( date ) ANNE EVERETT • NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY SERTEMBE'R 74, 1993 . A public hearing to consider the application submitted by KENNETH & SUSAN MARASH of 337 Griggs Gulf Road , Harford Mills , New York to establish a building lot at or about 175 German Cross Road , Ithaca New York 'with Zero feet of road frontage and requesting a variance Ito Section 803 . 1 & ` of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . A public hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday , i September 7 , 1993 with members present : Chair . Anne Everett , Charles Hanley , Joseph Jay , Alan LaMotte and Mark Varvayanis . FINDINGS 1 . The alleged difficulty of no road frontage was self — created by the Marashs when they sold all the road frontage of the original 85 acre property . The land was purchased in 1975 . The Marashs sold 6 acres with road - frontage in 1986 . In 1990 they sold another 16 acre parcel with frontage . In 1990 , a 4 acre plat was traded away for the 18 foot right — of —way . • 20 `Phe requested area variance is substantial since the Marash property has no road frontage . The lot conforms in every way except road frontage . 3 . An 18 ' right — of —way will be used to connect the property in question to German Cross Road . This proposed access route to the Marash property exits German Cross Road on the Juhl propertyq cuts through the Schmidt ;` Brown parcel and connects with the Marash property . A home plus the back 45 acres will use the access road . It does not service any structure at present . 4 . Concern was expressed by one Board Member about setting a precedent when granting a variance ° if no road frontage exists . 5 . Neighborhood support and opposition was read from letters to the Board . One property owner !'appeared to express opposition to the development of the right — of — way . 6 . The right — of — way was necessitated by topographical impediments . • FINDINGS FOR KENNETH & SUSAN MARASH CONTINUED 7 . The character of the neighborhood would not change . The house would not be visible from off the property . a . The Conservation easement by its terms protects the use of the land and limits development of '; the land to one dwelling . See Conservation Easement . 9 . It appears to be infeasible to ' build on this lot if the variance is not granted . Joseph Jay moved that bases onithe findings that the variance for 125 feet of road frontage relief be granted . Motion second by Alan LaMotte . • Discussion : Vote : YES ( 3 ) J . Jay. g A . LaMotte and M . Varvayanis NO ( 1 ) A . Everett ABSTAINED ( 1 ) C . Hanley VARIANCE GRANTED f' Respectfully submitted , Dated , Anne Everett , Chairwoman • it c � iSTATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of SERV-RITE CORPORATION for the ro ert P P Y located at 80 EPNA LME CERTIFICATE ( Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 44- 1- 18 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I , ANNE EVERETT , chairperson Hof the Town , of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , do hereby certify , pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision iapproved by such board on SEPTEMBER 7 , 1993 • Dated : Dryden , New York ( date ) ANNE EVERETT • li NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7 , 1993 A public hearing to consider the application submitted by SERVRITE CORPORATION of 80 Etna Lane , Freeville , New York to erect a free standing sign closer than 15 feet from the NYS right away boundary and requesting a variance to Section 1501 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . A public hearing was duly scheduled by the Town of Dryden ,, Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday , September 7 , 1993 with members present : Chair . Anne Everett , Charles Hanley , Joseph Jay , Alan LaMotte and Mark Varvayanis . MARK VARVAYANIS MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BE DENIED WITH OUT PREJUDICE AS THE APPLICANT OR HIS ' AGENT WERE NOT PRESENT TO PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE BOARD , ACCORDING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED JULY 61 1993 . SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH JAY VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett , C . Hanley , J . Jay , A . LaMotte and M . Varvayan i s 11 NO ( 0 ) ° ABSTAINED ( 0 ) VARIANCE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Respectfully submitted , Dated Anne Everett , Chairwoman • STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the matter of the appeal of J GEORGE & ELLEN SHANK for the property located at 99 WOOD ROAD , FM7IL1E NY „ CERTIFICATE ( Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 40- 1-22 . 61 ) I , ANNE EVERETT , chairperson of the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , do hereby certify , pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such board ;' that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such board on SEPTEL"BER 7 , 1993 . • Dated : Dryden , New York !� ( date ) ANNE EVERETT f NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7 , 1993 A public hearing to consider the application submitted by GEORGE & ELLEN SHANK of 176 Wood Road , Freeville , NY to create a building lot at 99 Wood Road with 50 feet of shared road frontage and requesting a variance -to Section 753 . 1 & c of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . A public hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday ; September 7 , 1993 with members present : Chair . Anne Everett , Charles Hanley , Joseph Jay , Alan LaMotte and Mark Varvayanis . FINDINGS 1 . Mr . & Mrs . Shank requests a variance to build a duplex dwelling on a three acre parcel which will be serviced by a driveway to his mobile home park which has 50 feet of road frontage . 2 . There was no neighborhood opposition . • m ."' ` Be cause o , own Law , the ali , icant can not enlarge the mobile Ho6e pa �rk . the ddp- ieK wall' add to the parks incoise . 11 4 . There is a large pine tree buffer between the lot and the road . MARK VARVAYANIS MOVED THAT BASED ON THE FINDINGS THE BOARD APPROVE MR . SHANKS APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE . SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH JAY VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett , C . Hanl„ ey , J . Jay , A . LaMotte and M . Varvayanis NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) VARIANCE GRANTED • Respectfully submitted , Dated Anne Everett , Chairwoman • STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPK !INS TOWN OF DRYDEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the matter of the appeal of ROBERT ARMSTRONG for the property located at 301 TURKEY HILL ROAD CERTIFICATE ( Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 67- 1-75 . 1 I , ANNE EVERETT , chairperson , of the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , do hereby certify , pursuant to Rule G of the Rules of Procedure of such board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such board on SE-P=ER 7 , 1993 • Dated : Dryden , New York ( date ) ANNE EVERETT • NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7 , 1993 ii A public hearing to consider the application submitted by ROBERT ARMSTRONG of 301 Turkey Hill Road , Ithaca , New York to erect a woodshed with overhead !`pay loft closer than 70 feet from center of Turkey Hill Road and requesting a variance to Section 753 . 1 of thel Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . A public hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday;, September 7 , 1993 with members present : Chair . Anne Everett , Charles Hanley , Joseph Jay , Alan LaMotte and Mark Varvayanis . FINDINGS 1 . Mr . Armstrong requests a variance to build a woodshed / Rlayloft 42 feet from the road center and 6 feet from the road shoulder . Concern was expressed by one Board member about the safety of the children when playing near the building and the road . 2 . Other areas on the 20 acres could be used on which to build the structure . 3 . The request is substantial in that 70 ' from the center of the road is required and 42. feet is the actual amount . CHARLES HANLEY MOVED THAT THE ; VARIANCE FOR MR . ARMSTRONG BE DENIED . SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY ANNE EVERETT VOTE YES ( 5 ) A . Everett , C . Hanley , J . Jay , A . LaMotte and M . Varvayanis NO ( 0 ) ABSTAINED ( 0 ) VARIANCE DENIED Respectfully submitted , • Dated Anne Everett , Chairwoman D NOV 51993 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of WILLIAM GOODHEW for the property located at 73 GERMAN CROSS ROAD CERTIFICATE Town of Dryden Tax Ma ( Y P Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 3302 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I , ANNE EVERETT , chairperson liof the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals , do hereby certify , pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such board ; that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision ijapproved by such board on OCTOBER 5 , 1993 Dated : Dryden , w y n , New York November 3 , 1993 ( date ) ANNE EVERETT