Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-04 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 4, 2000 t AGENDA: ( 1) Bruno Schickel : Zoning interpretation, Multi-family dwelling. (2) Janice Vestal: Continued hearing from November 3'a, 1999. O MEMBERS PRESENT : Chair Charles Hanley, Ann Everett, Stuart Berg, Oers Kelemen, and Alan LaMotte, Legal Counsel : Randall Marcus ALSO PRESENT: Town Board Councilperson Deb Grantham, Clinton Cotterill, Henry Slater, Janicc;Vestal, and Peter Sezncc. The Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairperson Charles Hanley. Chair Hanley asked legal counsel Randall Marcus if he would like to say anything about procedures. Mr. Marcus stated that he did want to get on the record that although in the past he has provided some legal representation to Mr. Schickel which would in some cases present a conflict of interest, Mr. Schickel had been advised to the fact that he (Randall Marcus) represents the Zoning Board He stated that he (Randall Marcus) and Chair Hanley had discussed this issue at some length and it was his understanding that both Mr. Schickel and the Board were happy to have him remain the legal advisor to the Zoning Board as he has had no involvement on Mr. Schickel 's behalf with this property or project or anything related to the question that has been raised Chair Hanley agreed that he and Mr. Marcus had spoken at length about this issue and he feels that the Board has enough confidence in Randall Marcus that there would be no question of objectivity, and that Mr. Marcus had no specific involvement in this matter for Mr. Schickel, and that there would be no objections. He offered the floor to anyone who had objections. There were no objections from the audience or the Board Bruno Schickel - Zoning Definition Interpretation The Chair opened by reading three letters, the first dated December 6 h, 1999 to Bruno Schickel, the second dated November 29, 1999 to Mahlon R. Perkins, Dryden Town Attorney, and the third dated December 6 h, 1999 to Charles Hanley, (please see attached letters). Henry Slater noted that on December 20'', 1999 he advised Chair Hanley that he had indeed scheduled the review for the January 4'h, 2000 agenda. The Chair opened the floor for Henry Slater to speak. Mr. Slater stated that he feels he has gone into sufficient depth to explain why he believes that a Multifamily dwelling is one structure that contains three or more separate dwelling units. He added that the wording of the Zoning Ordinance grammatically makes it appear that Multi- family dwelling units need not he attached He stated that Mr. Schickel went to the trouble of having an English Professor review the wording of the Ordinance and that the Professor came up with the same conclusion. However, Mr. Slater pointed out that he believes what is pertinent is what the intent was of the people who drew up the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. He then introduced former Supervisor Clinton CotterW and invited him to speak as a witness for the members of the Board who drew up the Ordinance. C. COTTERILL : I was on the Board, I wasn't Supervisor (at that time) but I was on the Board when Zoning was adopted in 1969, and 1 served 20 years after that. It was always the interpretation of the Board at that time that multiple dwelling was multiple units within one building and if it was more than one building with one residence it was single family and if there were two residence mots in it, it was a two family residence and we had always interpreted it that way. There was also a case a long time ago, probably some of you people know about Page 1 of 17 it, when we had a big discussion about road frontage because, as you all (may) know, in the past it was interpreted that you had to have separate road frontage for each strucuuer, and it has to meet a certain (standard). You couldn 't have multiple structures where each one would stand-alone, you could have several units on a lot but they had to have proper road frontage and area (so that) if they were ever separated they would be legal. The reason that was put in, and some of you may know about it, was that the Cornelius (family) put in a large development on Ringwood Court back in the 60 ' s. They put in 20-30 houses and each had their own lot, but it was done just before Zoning and they financed them all, and sold them to individuals. Well, over the neat ten years different ones that they sold to came back and sold their house, say they sold it to me, I go to the bank to get a mortgage the bank says "no, they don 't have any public road frontage, they are on private land, you either have to buy the whole thing or you have to have public road frontage, " That is where it got into the big discussion about public road frontage. Of course, you can interpret what it says now, but I do know what happened there, the nineteen residence each gave ten feet off of their front lot on either side of the mad to get enough width for a town road because the original drive wasn 't wide enough for a town road. We bonded it, so those people paid several hundred dollars every year in their taxes for ten years to pay off the contractor to rebuild that street to town spec to make it wide enough and make public road frontage. So back then that was a very controversial thing, putting several houses without proper land, so that is kind of the history of what happened. I don 't think I have much more to add unless somebody has a question. There were no questions and the Chair turned the floor over to Bruno Schickel. Mr. Schickel announced that he would be happy to entertain any questions as he went along_ B. SCHICKEL : In Henry ' s different letters that he has written to different people here he says that he feels that it is very specific and on this point 1 would agree with him, I do think it ' s very specific, but I think it' s specific in favor of what I am proposing to do. If you look in the definitions under dwelling it says "any building or part thereof which is designed and used for year-round human habitation or intended to be so and including any appurtenances thereto." The word dwelling says that it can be one unit or it can be more, i.n other words it doesn 't simply say that it has to be a single or multiple. So it ' s really just referring to just a building. Then if you go to the word dwelling multi-unit it says "one or more dwellings," and I believe the key it says "on a single lot containing," and if you really look at the word containing, the word containing is referring to a single Ioi, It ' s not referring all the way back to one or more dwellings. It says "one or more dwellings on a single lot containing separate dwelling units for the use and occupation of three or more families. " I believe that 's what I propose. I propose to put five single unit buildings, single unit dwellings on a single lot. It doesn' t say in this definition anywhere that they have to be attached. That word just simply is not used. Grammatically if you looked at it, for it to sav what Henry is saying it is, for Henry's interpretation to work, the word "each" would have to come before containing. So it would have to read "one or more dwellings on a single lot, each containing separate dwelling units for use and occupation by three or more families." So in my mind, I think it is very specific, saying that I can do what I am proposing, because the word each is not in the sentence. So the word containing is referring to a single lot, not all the way back to "dwellings. " I would sort of step back and say that, and Henry would agree with me on this, I mean we are in agreement, that there is no question that I can build rive dwelling units on this piece of property. H. SLATER: That is correct. B. SCHICKEL : In other words, given the frontage requirements, given the lot size requirements, given the set backs requirements, everything is okay for five units. So really the question is the configuration they take and do they have to be attached In my mind it becomes a little bit of an absurd question if you say they have to be attached because then what I said to Henry was, then the neat question was how much of the buildings have to be attached? If the roofs touch at one point does that make then attached or not? S. BERG: I have a question relating to what you were just saying. Henry, are you saying that if they were attached it wouldn' t be a problem or are you saying that as live single family homes, if they were spread out more it wouldn 't be a problem? ® Page 2 of 17 K SLATER Yes, if they were five single family dwellings on a single lot that would allow each one at any given time to be divided and sold off separately as a single family home providing 15,000 square feet per lot, and when the alleged property line were developed no part of any of the buildings would be closer than 30 feet on the side and 25 feet on the rear. Absolutely, I wouldn ' t have any problem with that, S. BERG. Is there enough room on this property to do that? H. SLATER: No. Physically they have to be attached. Traditionally they are attached by a common wall , which provided the division between one dwelling and the other dwelling with the appropriate Tire separation. In summary the reason why 1 think this is being confused with cluster housing, which I think would be very neatly done and would make an excellent project under that direction. I think everybody fails to see the key wording in here, which is the first part of the definition of dwelling unit multi-family, and the last little bit of it, says, "one or more dwellings" and then it ends by saying "for occupancy by three or more families." So it's clear that you can have one dwelling, it 's a multifamily dwelling if it has dwelling waits for three or more families. You also, if you have sufficient land or area within the lot to have more than one three family dwelling. You might have two three family dwellings, or four three family dwellings or any configuration of three or more that you would desire as long as you were in conformance with the zoning requirements for that particular district. I think those are more the key words, not what key words are missing or where commas are. It's the fact that right up front it tells you, `one or more dwellings" and then it concludes with saying, "that can be used (as little as one) by three or more families. I think it is as simple as that. S. BERG : How many square feet is this property? H. SLATER: 26, 322. Minimally lie would need 23 ,000 for a five family dwelling structure. B. SCHICKEL: Henry is choosing to readjust part of the sentence is the problem. He ' s not trading the whole thing. He's taking the first part and he's taking the last part, but a sentence is the entire thing. You can 't chose • which parts of it you want to read or which ones you want to leave out. I 'm saying that the way the sentence reads that five separate dwelling units is okay. I ' m saying for him to get the interpretation that he wants to have the word each would have to be in there. Really when you think about it, what makes something a multifamily? In my mind what they are trying to say is "what makes something a multi-family?" Just step back and say "how is a multi- family different than anything else?" It' s three families or more. I think we can all agree on that bemuse two families is just a two family. So it' s three families or more and it `s on a single lot. It 's not spread out on different lots: otherwise it' s no longer multi-family. That, in my mind, is really the key. I mean I guess I would go on to say I want to make sure Stuart, you asked a question, are you clear on the lot configuration and size? S. BERG: I can see the picture and I know the size now, yes. B. SCHICKEL: Okay, because I wanted to make sure you had that. So the point is really, I get back to the question of how much of the buildings then would have to be attached if you rule against what I 'm trying to do, that is really going to become the question, how much has to be attached. To me that gets into sort of a funny type of situation. I also would say why insist that they all be in one building, I mean really if you think about it what is the benefit? I mean, what ' s the benefit to the neighborhood, what' s the benefit to the nearby residence? What' s the benefit to the town? What is sort of the public interest, if you will, in having one structure so that any multi-family or any apartment type living has to be either in three unit buildings or more? I don ' t dunk that there is one, quite honestly. In other words it 's my belief and the reason why 1 ` m proposing this is that I think that in this environment, given the location where it is, given the setting and all that, I think that it will actually enhance the situation much more than a five unit building would. I think it will look better, 1 think it will blend in more with character of the surrounding area, and that is basically why we are proposing it. As opposed to simply coming in with a five unit building, S. BERG : Would a bank have a concern as he said if someone wanted to sell one of their homes separately. Is that going to be a concern here? Page 3 of 17 ® B. SCHICKEL : No, these aren 't for sale. These are only rental. S. BERG : But what if 20 years from now that is sold and someone buys a separate unit, and wants to do something . . . B. SCHICKEL : If I was to take this, build this and then say, "okay I want to sell this one unit on the end" it' s an illegal subdivision . In other words, the example that he (Clint Cotterill) was talking about it was an illegal subdivision. C. COTTERILL : That was before the Zoning Ordinance was in effect. B. SCHICKEL: You would allow that under today's zoning it would be an illegal subdivision . But not because of this definition. In other words it just would be an illegal subdivision because of road frontage requirements and things like that. I mean, in all fairness to Clint, that' s ancient history. In other words things have happened in the zoning law to deal with that situation . That' s a little bit like saying 1 build a five-unit building and I decide I ' m going to sell off the end unit even though it 's attached. Who cares I ' m going to create an illegal subdivision, I ' m going to say the building is cut down the middle and I ' m going to sell it of In other words, in reality sure somebody could do it. That doesn 't make it okay and doesn ' t make it legal and doesn' t say that it ' s going to happen- CHAIR HANLEY ; Before you go on, Clint did you want to respond to that? C. COTTERILL : I just wanted to raise a question. Let 's be hypothetical and say you pass away in ten years, Stranger things have happened and I hope it 's not true, but what I ' m saying is whoever takes control of your estate decides to do that if they don't ask they can get it transferred and make that illegal lot which is going to create (for • the) Zoning officer and the Board a hard time. That is the reason the Town did put that road frontage requirement and the individual requirement (in the Ordinance). I just want to raise one other question. S. BERG: That wouldn't meet Zoning requirements, they wouldn 't be allowed to do that. C. COTTERILL : There is no check unless Henry gets notice from the assessors that it has been sold and recorded. B . SCHICKEL : Well that means that any individual can create an illegal subdivision anytime they want. In other words the Zoning laws aren't written to prevent people from breaking the law. This is the code that people are . . . H. SLATER: Well, it ' s for honest people. C. COTTERILL: I just want to ask one question then I 'll be quiet. There is a place up nest to me that has a large house. It has fluctuated back and forth beriveen a one family house and a two. But let 's call it a one family house. In back there is a big garage, and it doesn ' t have a use right now. It would be the same thing if they went back there and made it residential property. That is my question . Can they do that because it is allowed for a two family house in that district? Could they go back there and make that garage into a second house on the same lot as the other house? I just raise that question to think about it. B. SCHICKEL : Is it zoned multi-fam.i.ly or not? C. COTTERILL : I 'm talking about two families. One in the house and one in the garage behind the house. B. SCHICKEL: 1 think if you looked at the two family definition it very specifically says that it has to be attached. No where in the definition does the word attached appear it's just not there. In my mind I think that is very ® important. I also would just respond briefly to Clint about, he was saying back from 1900 on and you were involved Page 4 of 17 in this, which I know you were, and you were saying it was interpreted this w^ay. Who interpreted it this way? Did the 7.BA ever have an interpretation? In other words, did you ever vender a decision or did your predecessors ever render a decision? C. COTrERILL: No, the town attorney and the town Board made those interpretations. No one ever asked or challenged. B. SCHICKEL : Okay, t just wanted to see if there was something in the record previously that could shed some light on this. The last thing that 1 would say is that our attempt simply is to build a nice multi-fanuly small if you will five-unit development in this location. I think that it will look beautiful I think we' ll do a good job and I think quite honestly some of the things that are being brought up with regard to illegal subdivisions and stuff, to me those are just moot points. They are just not relevant in this situation. Thank you. CHAIR HANLEY: Is there anyone in the audience that wants to comment on this one'? Or are you guys here for the nest one? NO RESPONSE Randy would you like to speak at this time about legal gratnmir and English Professors? A'ITY. MARCUS : I would be happy to. 1 want to preface the substance by saying that this really is a very interesting issue that hasn't come up before. This is different than those occasions where you have had an interpretation to make. I agree with a lot of what both Henry and Bruno have said about how important it is to look at the specific language of the definitions. You really have to be extremely careful to get a Little deeper and I think t can get you a little bit deeper than where you are at this point. You are still left with a judgment call to make in the end as to what the definition really means_ I want to give you a couple ideas as to how you could better take apart these definitions and see what they are made up of and try to add another couple of weights to either side of the scale. You still have to decide which way the scale balances after. Again, a lot of what Henry said and a lot of what Bruno said is very much true. I think maybe the easiest place to start is with the one element that I think is missing from both of their interpretations. Going back to the definition of dwelling, and I ` m going to be doing this partly English Professor grammar wise and partly by the rules of construction. That is the general rules of law that apply to interpreting this statute. When you go track to the definition . . . S. BERG : Can I just ask a question about that? is our job strictly interpreting the words or interpreting the intent of these words. They may not be the same thing, ATTY . MARCUS: I don' t see so much of a distinction. To say you are interpreting the words, you are trying to decide what the intent was, you 're trying to decide what the meaning of these words was. S. BERG: For example, if we were to believe that the intent was to prevent multiple single structures then we might say they left out the word each and I would agree that if the word each were in there, there would be no question. So that would be based on intent, based on a literal reading of the content, we might come to a 180- degree different decision. ATTY. MARCUS : I think you ' re right Stuart, but what you ' re doing is taking what words are there on paper and deciding what they are supposed to mean, how they can be applied. I think it's just a different way of saying what the intent is. I agree with you, if that word each were in there I think it would clear things up. But it' s very often the case when you are looking at any statute whether it's your zoning law or another Municipal zoning law or state law or federal law that they are not well written. It's very often the case, and it' s very often the case that no one discovers they arc not well wTittcn until after they have been law for a long time, and some unique set of facts come up such as this and you have to go back and see, does it fit the way the law was written or not? It may be that in come cases the law didn 't envision this set of facts when it was written_ Maybe it did envision this set of ® facts and it just didn 't come out quite right. It happens, a lot, I think again your job is to take what is there and try Page 5 of 17 to figure out what is meant, what the intent was, i think you have to go back to where you were a few minutes ago with the definition of dwelling. I think it was Bruno that said, "a dwelling is a building " so it says "any building or part thereof' so the word by itself is intended to mean a single structure. Whether that is a structure that has two harts that arc attached somehow or three parts attached somehow, that 's a different question. But the word dwelling means a structure or a building. The thing that has been left out of the discussion so far is any focus on the definition of dwelling units. Which is a different term, which is really important to getting you to an end point The definition of dwelling unit says, "one or more rooms located within a dwelling" okay that's the really important part of that definition because dwelling has been defined as a building. Dwelling unit is talking about something within a building. 1 stopped in the middle. It goes on to say " providing complete living accommodations for the use or occupation by one family, including cooking and bathroom facilities and an independent entrance. " So that pair of words, dwelling unit, is a combination of rooms that suffice to allow for one fanuly to live in. Dwelling unit has to be part of a building so naturally it' s the case that a building can have one dwelling unit like typical single family homes, or it could have many dwelling units two, three, four, any number. It' s that definition of dwelling unit that 1 think is important, I ' m going to work up to where you were a minute ago, on dwelling unit multifamily definition because before you get to that we have a definition of dwelling unit one-family. That specifically says "a detached dwelling containing one dwelling unit only for use and occupation by no more than one family. " So that 's pretty clear. Dwelling unit one family, you're talking about a single structure with a single unit for a single family. Dwelling unit two-family reads almost the same as the one family definition. "Detached dwelling containing no more than two dwelling units." I mention these because the way the law is written there would appear to be some progression in terms of the definitions here. They are separating out the situation where a building has a unit. Next item, a building has two units. Then you come to dwelling unit multi-family, and I agree with a lot of what Bruno said about this and I want to point out again that I think this is the one that is not written very clearly. It says "one or more dwellings on a single lot containing separate dwelling units. That is, 1 think the critical element of this definition. Separate dwelling units means separate self-contained combinations of rooms that support occupation by one family. Bruno' s interpretation, because of the way this is written, is that that overall phrase "containing separate dwelling units" modifies the words single lot, I agree with ® him that from the English grammar point of view the way that sentence is laid out and without using the word each and without having oomma' s around the phrase "a single lot" grammatically you would conclude that containing separate dwelling units modifies a single lot. The problem that I have with following the grammatical rule is that if the definition of dwelling units is a combination of rooms that support occupation by a family, within a dwelling you can 't use that phrase "dwelling unit " to describe a lot because the phrase "dwelling unit" is specifically defined as "rooms located within a dwelling. " So although grammatically the sentence is set up so that "containing separate dwelling units" looks like it 's referring to the single lot, I think with these definitions the more appropriate way of using that phrase "containing separate dwelling units" would be to jump back and modify the "one or more dwellings" dwellings again being buildings. So 1 agree with Bruno that this is not clear that there are two ways to interpret it and to use the strict English grammar mechanism you would come to the conclusion that "separate dwelling units" is what ' s contained on the over all lot. What I'm saying is that if you refer to the definition of dwellings units it cannot describe what is going on. on a lot. It can only describe what is going on within a structure. That in combination with the fact that the definitions progress from dwelling unit one-family, dwelling unit two-family to dwelling unit multidamily, which refers to three or more, there would be a rule of construction that says in trying to interpret the statute you ' re suppose to interpret it in the simplest manner that makes any sense without twisting and turning, The simplest manner, and this is my opinion, you can probably ask another lawyer and get another opinion, but if you have definitions laid out such that you have one for a one- family, one for a two -family and one that refers to three or more, then there is intended to be some parallel between how those definitions are applied. There is a problem though, and this is a weight in the other side of the scale, with looking at it that way. This is something that Bruno also pointed out. In the one-family definition it does use the word detached to describe dwelling. In the two-family definition it also uses the word detached to describe the building. The unfortunately that word detached is missing from the multi-family definition. So there is a little bit of an inconsistency there. That 's something you have to weigh in also. S. BERG: There is another glaring error that yet screams at me, and that is why in the world do they call it dwelling unit one-family? it should be dwelling one-family, dwelling lwafamily, dwelling multi-family. Because they am not describing the dwelling units they are describing the dwellings. So that is completely off base. Wage 6 of 17 ATTY. MARCUS : Yes, I think that is another error in the way that this was written. I agree with you Stuart. The better use of the words would be just as you described it. Take out the word unit from the definition. S. BERG : These are not describing dwelling units at all. Dwelling unit multi-family, that doesn ' t make sense even . Because the unit is defined as one or more rooms located for one-family. So it doesn't make sense what so ever. ATTY. MARCUS: I think you ' re right. It's a good example of they way the words are used just doesn 't really work. But I think you `re left with some aspects of the interpretation that support Bruno's view and some aspects of the interoperation that support Henry' s view. 1 did want to emphasize that I think that the one element missing from both of their descriptions is the fact that the multi-family definition refers to dwelling units and the word dwelling units describes something that is part ofa building, not something that may be found otherwise . B. SCHICKEL : Can I comment? On that point handy, I again I don't think you can read the sentence by dropping off the beginning and saying "a single lot containing separate dwelling units." In other words, you have to mead it as a whole. When they say "one or more dwellings on a single lot containing separate dwelling units." We have already established that a dwelling can be one unit. In other words, it's not at all inconsistent to say that what they are saying here in essence the single lot has to contain more than three units. It specifically it not saying how they have to be configured. (To Randall Marcus) You pointed out that they do say a detached building up here, they do say a detached dwelling again, they don ' t say a detached and they don' t say unattached You can look at it and say "well they forgot," but I also think you can look at it and say, "maybe that was the intent. " In other words, that they were simply saying "okay, when it comes to multi -family the definition is, if it 's more than three units on a single lot have at it," I mean in essence. ATTY. MARCUS: 1 think that is a fair interpretation and I should say that if you're trying to interpret statutes you should take the view that nothing was inadvertently left out. You ' re suppose to, in looking at language in statutes, take the view that Bruno just expressed that what words are there and what words aren't there are intentionally there or absent. Not that it was an accident that something was left out . That's the general rule that you ' re supposed to bring to the interpretation. CHAIR HANLEY : I ' m going to open up to the Board Members then . Does anyone have questions for anybody? S . BERG : When I was referring to intent 1 wasn ' t so much referring to the intent of these words, but the intent of Zoning specifically. In other words, if the intent is to not have a problem like we had 30 or 40 years ago, then it 's quite clear to me that if our interpretation allows that to happen ever in the future then that is not the intent of this. Because the intent of this is clearly to prevent problems that have happened in the past. ATTY. MARCUS : I see the distinction you ' re making now is whether you are trying to get to the intent that is here or the intent of what was in the minds of the people who put the language there in the first place. That is also a legitimate thing to bring into the picture. It's called legislative history. If you ' re looking at a state law you might look at the earlier drafts. Usually with zoning laws you ' ll never find earlier drafts, but you have somebody here who was involved in putting it together and can give you a little of what was in the minds of the drafters. I think that is relevant that you look back to history and that you factor that in , In general that is relevant. In a case like this my opinion is that is not really relevant to your issue tonight. I would like Henry's input on this too. I don 't see how it would be possible to sell off portion of what is proposed and not just because it would be an illegal subdivision. That is clearly the case, but because I don ' t know a lawyer practicing anywhere around here that would allow a client to go ahead and buy a property that doesn't meet subdivision requirements. I mean, it 's become over the course of the past 10-20 years so much a part of the conveyancing process that I couldn't imagine it happening. Let 's say you did find a lawyer, occasionally you have some people who moored here from out of state or from another area, they are not familiar with zoning. . . Page 7 of 17 CHAIR HANLEY : Actually we did have a case like that. ATTY . MARCUS: They were using a lawyer form California or something (�) CHAIR HANLEY: Actually they were using the Ithaca Zoning Board, (to Mr. Slater) remember? A. LAMOITIr: They had frontage, they did not have access and that left them with a lot way out back and they had this 20-25 foot right of way. H. SLATER: They had just the easement to it. ATTY . MARCUS: Well, let' s say it happened that the buyer and the buyers lawyer, the problem you run into is that somewhere in the vicinity of 97-98% of residential purchases are financed by institutional lenders and institutional lenders would not put a mortgage on part of a property. It' s not possible, they simply wouldn ' t, the bank wouldn't, the banks lawyer wouldn 't. I just see it as an unrealistic result. S. BERG : So it does meet the intent of what the writers of this (Ordinance). If the intent was to prevent that and it' s not a problem then it would meet their original intent. ATTY. MARCUS : To allow the proposal to happen. S. BERG: Yes, ATTY , MARCUS: 1 just don ' t see that there is a connection. I think that intent to avoid the kind of really serious problems that occurred with the Ringwood road subdivision that Mr. Cotterill was talking about, which 1 know about from a few sources, went on for years, really cost a lot of people a lot of grief, a lot of money. I think those problems have been addressed by your zoning law, your subdivision requirements, and changes in the state law that parallel those changes. I have a hard time imagining those circumstances ever arising again in a town Like Dryden that has a full up and running body of Zoning law and a Zoning officer. I just don't see that sort of thing coming up again. So 1 think. the intent that was expressed about that problem has been resolved and I don' t think that these dclinitions really relate to that problem , CHAIR HANLEY: This bothers me on a whole different level . The more 1 read the more it bothered me, I understand that we have an interpretive power and in the past when Henry has come and asked for an interpretation I have had no problem with that. But we' re primarily an appellate structure. AM . MARCUS : Most of what you do, yes. CHAIR HANLEY : By statute there are procedures, criteria that we are suppose to meet as an appellate body. (to Mr. Schickel) l don 't mean to in any way impugn your motives. i don ' t think your motives are anything but the best. But, having an applicant say to the Zoning Officer, "I disagree with your interpretation, let ' s go to the ZBA, and let' s ask them for an interpretation," could very easily become a back door around Zoning, because now we are talking about a simple majority vote with no statutory criterion, no five things we have to meet, we' re discussing implications which we clearly have to meet by statute here and have to answer, this just really, really bothers me, and again (to Mr. Schickel) not you sir. But in the future to have an applicant say, "alright I want an interpretation from the ZBA" this could very easily end up as end runs around Zoning. ATTY. MARCUS : You ' re right, it could. CHAIR HANLEY: There is procedure. If Henry is turning down too many applicants and we arc handing out too many variances the Town Board looks at Henry's status of employment. I mean, there is a procedure here and this seems to subvert that whole structure. Page 8 of 17 ATTY . MARCUS : Well, I guess I would agree with you that it can act that way. But I don't see the severely negative aspect of what you ' re describing. I see what you do otherwise as a similar result_ In your appellate role you act to give exceptions to the Zoning law. So I think that could likewise be described as an end run around Zoning. 1 mean somebody comes in they don 't' have enough frontage . . . CHAIR HANLEY: But that is a statutory procedure. And there are guidelines for us and there is relief from that decision in Article 78 proceedings. This is very nebulous. The waters have already been muddied, (to Mr. Schickel) and again I 'm not impugning your motives at all, the applicant has said "well, you know if all 1 have to do is put a Hall and. " that sounds very reasonable and I ' m not saying it's not but it' s muddied the waters because now the Board is thinking, "well gee you know, what did they mean, what does it mean for now, what are the implications for the future? Really it' s just going to be a wall," This is a very worrisome road to set down for me. It' s quite a different thing when Henry comes and says what do you guys think about this. But when an applicant challenges the Zoning Officer and says, " I want a ruling" which in effect will allow hint to do his project without a variance. A. EVERETT: I whole heatedly agree with what Chuck is saying, and when I looked at this I said "my goodness it looks a can of worms," and I remember what Clint was referring to and a few other examples, and as I look at this Bruno, there arc five buildings and you' re telling us that those will be rental properties forever? I can see five single-family homes, the families trying to buy those homes. I ' m just concerned about that. But it ' s just in the whole general picture that this is opening up a whole can of worms, subverting our Ordinance, our Zoning Codes, period. B. SCHICKEL : If I could I would like to address both of your concerns. Charle% one of the things that you said. In others words I think you need to understand sort of how this came about. In other words, I went in and talked to Henry, he said "that 's the way I interpret it" and I said " I think it should be read this wale' and he said "well let 's talk to the Town attorney" and so he sent a letter to the Town attorney and the Town attorney basically said "well, this is one I want to pass the buck on, well send it to you (the ZBA)." So it wasn 't like I came in and sort of jacked O his arm up behind his back and said "you've got to take this (to the ZBA). " I think the fact of the matter is, there has been a number of levels, of steps that have been taken and I think that the fact that it got to this level speaks to the fact that people felt uncomfortable simply making a ruling on it because there is many sides to the story. CHAIR HANLEY: I never thought you did anything like that. I understand that. What I am saying is that because it is that muddied then in the interest of preserving the integrity of the Zoning laws the variance structure is there for you to come and say "look 1 don 't think I need a variance, this is what it says." That would very cosily fit into the whole statutory system, that 's all I ' m saying. B. SCHICKEL: I want to address Ann's if I could. Ann your concern about these being sold off as single family homes, in my mind, number I these are about 10 feet apart, okay, so they are very close together. Number 2, if I have a lot and 1 decided I wanted to put, say this lot was, I think it would have to be 10 feet wider out of right I could put six units on it and by Henry' s interpretation I could put two buildings with three units in each one, or one building with six. So I could put two buildings vtith three units in each one . H. SLATER: I couldn ' t agree more. B. SCHICKEL: But the fact of the matter is, I could make an illegal subdivision and sell, and split the property down in two and try to sell the three units which would be illegal, just as illegal as if I were to try to sell one of these units separately. That ' s what Randy was really addressing. The fact is that these issues that went back, what Clint was bringing up, really have been addressed and that it 's really a moot point. (to Mr. Marcus) Am I putting words in your mouth? ATTY . MARCUS : 1 agree with that. I just can't imagine that result . I just can ' t imagine that there would end up being someone able, to buy one of these properties separately. Whether it 's because their attorney stops them, or a bank stops them or a bank attorney stops them or Henry stops them or what ever the case may be. Page 9 of 17 A LAMOTTE : A whole lot of issues Mr. Chairman if I may. First I want to thank Bruno for bringing this issue to us. In all my years on the Board I have never had as much fun trying to determine what my position was going to be and I am very serious. As a family we have set there over this thing, I 've talked to Randy, I 've used the dictionary and at this point I am still not decided. So far as the point the Chair raises his concerns about what better body than five true and honest citizens from the community to make this determination. That 's a question I pose to you (to Chair Hanley) . CHAIR HANLEY: I never said it would be another body, I said it would be another procedure of this body. A statutory procedure. A. LAMOTfE: Well it's a function that is assigned to us by the state law. It ' s not something that we assumed by ourselves. There seems to be a great deal of concern about this, could somehow provide an opportunity for someone to proceed down the road with some illegal development . Well, the opportunity is there for evenghing that is in that Ordinance. You can sell your neighbor a piece of land that moves the property line up within five feet of your house. You may get away with it up to a point but it's illegal. So to say "thus is going to create some illegal opportunity," I think we are just over-reacting and the opportunity for something like that to happen is no greater with this than it is with any piece of property and with any (disputes) with the Ordinance that we have. I find myself in considerable disagreement with you unless the law changes we have this responsibility tonight to arrive with a decision. Maybe we can get the law changed before some other issues similar . . . CHAIR HANLEY: I ' m saying we have the power to do it, I say we also have the power to say that wee support the decision of the Zoning Officer and there is a variance procedure in place and we expect people to go through that. Not because there aren 't practical reasons why this isn 't fine and maybe the results of this particular project are fine. I ' ll tell you frankly that ' s not what I ' m thinking about, because I don't think that' s why we arc here. People change, plans change 10 years, 15, 20 years down the road it all could be different. What you have is the law. Either you sct up a procedure you follow or you don ' t. 1 always thought my job here was to make sure that ® the procedures were followed. A. LAMOTTE: Alright, but the question is, is he or is he not following the procedures? You ' re making the assumption that he is not. You have apparently pre judged the thing. . CHAIR HANLEY : What I have said is I think that this is a very dangerous edge here. The waters are real muddy. The legislature has provided us with a statutory guide for those kinds of things. 1 agree with you that we have every right to make this decision. I ' m saying we shouldn ' t. A. LAMOTTE : I ' ll turn that over to Randy as strictly a legal point that, is there anyway that we would escape making this decision under the state law? ATTY. MARCUS : I think you are bound to come up with an interpretation. That is one ofyour charges. As Chuck just said, you could support the Zoning Officers interpretation that's one possibility. You could come up with your own interpretation of something that hasn 't been described yet. Or you could come up with an interpretation that aligns with Mr. Schickel 's description , I started off saying that I think there is a lack of clarity to this definition and I think you could come up with any one of those three possibilities. I think there are justifications that you could use to support either agreeing with him or agreeing with Bruno or coming up with something entirely different because 1 don't think the wording is clear. But you are charged with coming up with some interpretation. Now, I don 't disagree with you Chuck that in most cases where an applicant gets an interpretation from the Zoning Of fccr basically saying "no I ' m turning down your application, the reason I ' m turning it down is because I interpret the law such and such a way." Typically the next step would be for the applicant to some to your Board for a variance. That ' s probably 901/a of the occasions that you are sitting at this table, arc a result of those couple of steps I ' ve indicated. This one happened to go a somewhat different route and it doesn ' t change the fact that you have to come up with some decision tonight, ® Page 10 of 17 CHAIR HANLEY : Again, I am not suggesting that we not. What I ' m saying is that we err on the side of preserving the sanctity of the law. Let elected officials change the law, that 's fine. Pm not elected. ATTY . MARCUS : You may remember me saying this once recently, you are always in a position to send a request to the Town Board when you've unveiled a flaw or a glitch in the law to recommend they change it. They are the legislature, you can' t change it yourself., but you can suggest that. A. EVERETT: We arc still waiting for our one request. B. SCHICKEL: Randy am I correct in saying that what you ' re really saying is that there is no way to take a line on this? That's what I heard you say. If for instance you vote me down on this, what you' re really saving is that Henry' s interpretation is correct, in other words it isn't like you' re saying, "well, we don't want to make a decision therefore we are going to vote no." You are making a decision. You're saying that Henry ' s decision is correct. Quite honestly, Henry is the one, (to Henry) initially you were going to submit the application not me, in other words that' s the way you started out in other words, in fact you were the one who volunteered to come to you and you told me initially that you were going to be the applicant not me. In other words I had no interest in being the applicant I was interested in having the issue resolved. H, SLATER Actually there is no applicant in this case. It 's not an application. CHAIR HANLEY : Actually correct me here, if we said no, you could still go back and apply the variance because this would not be the same as a variance decision. B. SCHICKEL : I do have one other question for you Randy. It's my understanding from talking to some different attorney' s is that when it comes to zoning there is a legal principle that basically says that when something is not specifically excluded that it has to be granted. In essence because you are dealing with private property rights, unlike other areas in the law, the error goes on the side of the property owner. ATTY , MARCUS : That ' s true and that is well put. Because, and this goes back to the concept that we have had come up a couple of times. 'Zoning is in derogation of the constitution, it ' s a very unique body of law it's violative of the constitutional right to your property, and to do with your property what you will . So zoning should be as specific as possible, so what they tell you that you can ' t do, is all you can ' t do. If the zoning law doesn't say it, then you should be allowed to do it. That's true. B. SC14ICKEL : I think given what you've commented here, and your comments you can't say that the zoning in this sentence says I can 't do this. H. SLATER: It does not tell you that you can ' t build a multi-family residence, it doesn't pretend to really tell you how to. B. SCHICKEL: It doesn't say that I cannot build five detached units. It really doesn ' t. ATTY. MARCUS: The problem is that, that definition does prohibit something. The question that the ZBA has is "what does it prohibit?" It just isn' t clear. I think you can justify again both yours (to Mr. Schickel) and Henry's interpretation. I think that the language is there. The unclear language is there to support either result. B. SCHICKEL : If 1 could make another comment on that. Basically, the zoning is, in other words, you would allow single family, it would allow two-family, it would allow multi-family. So in a certain sense multifamily is the broadest possible part of residential that you have. So that it is not intended to exclude anything. Single family is intended to exclude something; it's intended to exclude multifamily. Two family always has single-family and two-family, then you get to multifamily, so the difference is they aren't writing a definition from the standpoint from excluding something, I dunk that's really, if you look at it, you know that 's the thing, they are saying is has ® to be more than three dwelling units. Page 11 of 17 ATTY . MARCUS: 1 agree with that. The thing that I think is really the problem that the Board has with it or the issue the Board has to resolve is what is meant by multi-family? Because I agree with you that multi-family is the broadest and it is the one that provides for the least restrictions. But, multi-family means something. It means that you can do something specific for the zoning law and what isn 't clear is what it is that you can do. I mean there 's certainly a difference, we wouldn ' t be here night if there wasn 't a difference between five detached single dwelling units and one unit that has five dwelling units in it. So, the fact that there is a definition at all means that there was an intent to exclude something, and I think the problem is what was intended to be excluded. P. SEZNEC: Since there has been no applicant tonight, so nothing is going to actually come about this tonight, though you are going to have to make some sort of decision, could you go back to the history. I remember sitting in this room in the late 70 's when the zoning was being written; I don' t know how well they kept the records then. But they used actually zoning that I think Groton had written for them, and they had already spent the forty thousand dollars. About ten people sat in here going over it page by page. If you wanted to find if there was an exclusion or if there was some history to be found that you could find out what they were trying to exclude and why they were trying to exclude it, bemuse it might answer some of the questions. I mean if it' s going to be all based on those two sentences. ATTY. MARCUS : 1 don't know what is available. i have never had an occasion to look through something like that for the Town of Dryden. R SEZNEC: I sat through a number of things because we were actually illegally zoned where I was working. So 1 wanted to know what was going on, and 1 just remember sitting here and they actually went line by line and they used the attorney to decide if they changed any language. But basically they almost took it verbatim of Groton. You know this might come up, this question night come up. It might also just have been skated right over I mean you're talking many, many pages, but if it would help anybody that might be a solution to what you 're facing. ATTY. MARCUS : There may be something there, I just don 't know what' s in the files. i don' t know if Henry knows if there' s anything. H. SLATER: Well, I 've spent a lot of time in the archives and I 've not ever tripped over anything like what Peter speaks about. P. SEZNEC : It was about a year and a half worth of meeting. So it ' s not exactly a fun thing to go and do, and I apologies for even bringing it up. (jokingly) H. SLATER I discover as much by accident as I do on purpose because you know you' ll be hunting for one thing and you trip over something that triggers something in your mind and you read it because it' s interesting and it 's something that will turn up, But, in summary and I think we have to move on sometime we have an applicant waiting. In summary, for the last 30 years, applicants and town officials have always assumed I guess that a multi- family residence was a structure with three or more dwelling units in it. Applicants have applied the formula that way; the town has accepted that. So traditionally that ' s the way it's been looked at. Whether that is right or wrong is (dependent upon the individual). The second point is, how are we going to address multi-family structures for the next 30 years, 100 years, whatever. I don't want to make you feel bad Chuck but what you decide may be very important in how that is done. I think the plan that Mr. Schickel has is a very attractive plan. I think, as I have suggested in writing, that it 's more of a cluster approach and I think that there is a great future for cluster development and I think it 's a needed tool in our ordinance as well as in other ordinances. it may be that we should encourage some new ideas, turn on some new lights and maybe come up with a plan for clustering and make both of these options available. Ask the Town to clean up the definition section of dwelling, dwelling units, single, two and multi. Similarly to what you did when you were unable to arrive to a clear idea of whether our zoning permitted mobile homes or not. The Town Board took your suggestion and cleaned that up. Maybe that' s what we really need to do here, is maybe create something new and clean up something old. Make room for both of these ® because I think he (Mr. Schickel) has a good project, as he says it benefits more people than it doesn 't but I don 't Page 12 of 17 think you ' re here to decided whom it benefits and whom it doesn't. You 're here to decide what the regulation requires. Bruno and I have known each other forever and we seem to always find ourselves on opposite sides of arguments. But yet somehow we manage to stay friends through it all. But, I would like to see his project be something that the Town considers in the future because 1 think it ' s good for the 'Town. I don 't think it fits the current definition of multi-family dwelling or structure. B. SCHICKEL: Can I summarise to? I ' ll be brief. In summary I would just say that, thank you for your time, but I would also say that I think that if you read the definition of multi-family I do not think that you can say that it excludes live dwelling units on a single lot in separate dwellings. It just does not say that. No where does it say they have to be attached. I think it' s a giant leap to make that interpretation, I really do. 1 understand your concern and reluctance in terns of making some decisions, but at the same time that is what the law charges you with and that' s your duty. 1 would also comment, remind you about the legal principle of holding real property on a higher standard. Basically, as Randy said, if the law doesn't say you can't do it, (to Mr, Marcus) maybe I ; in putting words in your mouth, but if the law doesn't say you can't do it, then you can. Given those things, I don ' t see how you can come to any conclusion other than to say that this is okay. With no objections from the Board the Chair closed the hearing section and directed to move on to the next applicant after a five-minute recess. The Chair then opened the next public hearing. Janice Vestal - Continued hearing from Nosvmbcr 3'4, 1999 The Chair stated that he had asked Ms. Vestal to secure a survey map, which she had done. He then read a letter dated December 22, 1999 to him from Mr. Stater (please see attached letter). He went on to say that included in the letter were documents from the Tompkins county health department and the survey as requested by the ZBA. He addressed Mr. Slater's second concern and opened the floor up to Ms. Vestal by asking if any of the four alternatives that Mr. Slater proposed were attractive to her. J . VESTAL : I thought that you had to have a minimum of 15 feet, but the town of Dryden (requires) 25 feet? H. SLATER: No, it is 15 (feet) but if you look at the dimensions, 13 something and. J . VESTAL: No, I mean for the driveway. So I was wondering if it would take (.9) so you have like 23 . 1 . H. SLATER: You would just simply move the line. J . VESTAL: For the driveway? So that we had the 15 feet. H. SLATER: That was one of the suggestions right? I was still outside at that point. You would still have in excess of 15 feet right? J. VESTAL: Right, yes, it would still be like 23 feet. H. SLATER 15 feet would be like a minimum requirement that would be identified under state or municipal law or relative to public access so I would think that the Board is acceptable to that. That's why I put it in there 1 thought it was a reasonable solution to just adjust the line for the third time and be done with it; it creates the 15 feet of set back which you need. A. LAMOTTE: (! have a) question for Henry or Randy. In the proposal, Henry just suggested, my question was in assuming that i4v do require that in that proximity of the house that the driveway be narrower to such dimensions as to provide the required 15 feet, in other words the lot line would not be straight all the way back, that it would ® be moved to the side enough to provide the 15 feet in that proximity to the house. Page 13 of 17 ATTY. MARCUS : Well, I think you could do it either way_ If I ' m understanding you right Nick you ' re saying that you could have the line jog out at this point. What Henry and Ms. Vestal were just describing was just shifting the line_ I think either way it' s covered by the first option that Henry proposes, or second option where he says "conditionally grant the variance conditional on the applicant adjusting the lot line to provide 15 feet between the mobile home and the lot line" it could be either of those two ways. CHAIR HANLEY: Ms. Vestal did you have anything you wanted to add to the application besides that? Any new information we didn 't get last time anything you wanted to emphasize? J . VESTAL : No. CHAIR HANLEY : Did you sir have any comments on this one? (to Peter Seznec). I certainly open it up to the Board then, if anybody has any questions for Ms. Vestal? A EVERETT: Can I. just ask for a matter of review? There will be three mobile homes on the original property after its cut up? S. BERG. Just two. J. VESTAL: Just two. A. EVERETT : Okay, well; then is there one on the little property? J . VESTAL : There is an existing structure there now. A. EVERETT: Okay, then what about the back parcel? What will happen to it? J . VESTAL : That is where I have a proposed doublcwide mobile home. CHAIR HANLEY : Do you want to come up here? A. EVERETT: I 'm unclear about this (indicating the survey map). We have this property which is in other hands now, this is the existing one, this is the proposed and what about this? J. VESTAL : Oh that will just be empty yard. A. EVERETT: Do you know the entire dimensions of the original property? J . VESTAL : 426 by 320. From what I understand the original owner was Ron Bossard. He says "I sold an acre of land to Lockwood" which this isn' t an acre, wasn 't an acre it was .86 before he took back the 25 feet. He never had it surveyed at the time, they just decided on where the lines were. Then Lockwood %vcnl and purchased the back property from Roger Gleason and at that time Roger Gleason had it surveyed. There were a lot of discrepancies in that survey which Greene t'ound. So this is suppose to be to spec. H. SLATER: That is an interesting survey, there is a lot of information on that survey. J. VESTAL: Well I know they were there a lot. It wasn 't just a cut and dry, go over and do a survey. The lines were changed and everything. I had more property than what I thought I had. There was a problem with that too. Right at this time I have been working so much on that existing structure up front I don ' t really know if I ' m going to put the mobile home back there because when I was here before I wanted to get a new one and put it back there. Well, I've been working so hard for the last two months on this front one, I 've got this in pretty good shape. But I ® still want the variance in case in the future I would like to do that. Page 14 of 17 S. BERG : Henry was there a notification to the neighbors for this one? H. SLATER: Oh absolutely. S. BERG : Because last time the neighbors came, but not this time . J. VESTAL: They have been good. I. don' t know, see my brother is mentally handicapped, he is able to live on his own (and) my original plan was to get the new home for him in back and have someone out in the front trailer to kind of look over him and help him and stuff like that. I think that she was just kind of going off the wall . Even when she was saying "if I want to run around naked in my back yard . . ." But the thing is, after they had this surveyed my Line is even closer to her back }ward. I was told that she had complete access to the little property, which is on my land. There is nothing written at all saying that they had access. I don 't have a problem with it as long as they don't eve me a problem. What I am wondering is, her property is for sale. So if she sells her property, what happens there? Do I still have to allow access? Or what do you suggest? The surveyors said to me " you really wanted to be difficult, you wanted a privacy fence you can put one right straight to the road, let her park out in the road." A. EVERETT: Why don' t they access the property? They have 170 feet? Why don ' t they do that? A culvert hasn' t been put in place or a driveway? S. BERG : There was some reason they did that. J. VESTAL : Well , because it was easier, it was already done . CHAIR HANLEY : Does anyone else on the Board have any questions'? FnIERE WERE NO QUESTIONS The Chair then closed the public hearing and asked to move on to deliberations. A LaMotte suggested that a resolution could be more easily obtained for the Vestal hearing than the Schickel hearing. Chair Hanley asked the Board if there were any disagreements with that suggestion and there were none. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In considering the application of Janice Vestal of 307 West South Street, Groton, N.Y. The Zoning Board of Appeals finds the following: FINDINGS A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODEUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OT DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPEWHES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE, TIME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOW: 1 . Since the lot and total acreage would conformed to the requirements allowing more than one dwelling, the requested variance is concerned only with proper public road frontage. The neighbors initial Opposition was irrelevant to the variance request. Page 15 of 17 B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS . 1 . The original lot was land locked ; therefor purchase of the front parcel by the applicant allows a means for developing access. Because of the limited road frontage there is no other feasible solution. C . IN CONSIDERING WETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : 1 . The relief requested is substantial, but the resulting road frontage is in excess of the state minimum. D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL 14AV'E AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : 1 . There would be no adverse or meaningful impact on the neighborhood because the lot meets all other building and zoning requirements. E. IN CONSIDERING WETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : L The difficulty was self-crested. THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617. 5 (13) ♦ ANN EVERETT MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST BE GRANTED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The lot line separating; the two parcels is to be moved at least 1 .09 feet in a northerly direction to satisfy the side set-back requirements. ♦ SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY STUART BERG. DISCUSSION : VOTE: YES (5) S. BERG, A. EVERETT, C. HANLEY, O. KELEMEN , A. LAMOTTE. NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ® Page 16 of 17 In considering the request of Brno Schickel of 211) Schutt Road, Dryden, NY for interpretation of the definition of Multi-family structure the Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following motions: MOTIONS ♦ ANN EVERETT MAIZE THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS : A. THAT THE ZBA SUPPORT THE ZONING OFFICER'S INTERPRETATION ON THIS ISSUE. 7 SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY STUART BERG. w VOTE : YES (3) S. BERG, A. EVERETT, AND O. KELEMEN NO (1 ) A. LAMOTTE ABSTAINED (0) B. THAT THERE BE A REQUEST THAT THE TOWN BOARD EXAMINE AND CLARIFY THE DEFINITIONS OF THE DWELLING AND DWELLING UNITS. SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY OERS KELEMEN. C* VOTE: YES (4) S. BERG, A. EVERETT, O. KELEMEN , AND A. LAMOTTE NO (0) ® ABSTAINED (0) C. THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDER THE CLUSTER HOUSING CONCEPT. ➢ SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY STUART BERG. ❖ VOTE: YES (4) S. BERG, A. EVERETT, O. KELEMEM, AND A. LAMOTTE NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) Page 17 of 17 ® STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of JANICE VESTAL the property located at 575 CASWELL ROAD CERTIFICATE (Town of Dryden Tax Map parcel No . 23- 1 -20 . 2 1, CHARLES HANLEY, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such board , Hereby agree that the forgoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such board on JANUARY 4, 2000. Dated : Dryden , New York Date : January 92000 CHARLES HANLEY ® STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of JANICE VESTAL the property located at 575 CASWELL ROAD CERTIFICATE (Town of Dryden Tax Map parcel No. 23-1 -20.2 L CHARLES HANLEY, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such board , Hereby agree that the forgoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such board on JANUARY 4, 20000 ® Dated: Dryden , New York Date: January . L , 2000 aWAZ HANLEY ® TUESDAY, JANUARY a, 200 A public hearing to consider an application submitted by Janice Vestal of 307 West South Street, Groton, NY , Ms. Vestal was asking relief to create a lot at or about 575 Caswell Road, Dryden , with only 25 ' of public road frontage where 12Y of public road frontage is required. A public hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday January 4, 2000 with members present: Chair Charles Hanley, Alan LaMottc, Oers Kelemen, Ann Everett and Stuart Berg. FINDINGS AREA VARIANCE: A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATE BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : 1 . Since the lot and total acreage would conform to the requirements allowing more than one dwelling the request of variance is concerned only with public road frontage. In neighbor' s initial opposition was irrelevant to the variance request. B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The original lot was land locked, therefor purchase of the front parcel by the applicant allows a means for developing access. Because of the limited road frontage there is no other feasible solution. C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, `TIIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The relief requested is substantial, and it is in excess of the state laws. D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECTOR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIND AS FOLLOWS : 1 . There would be no adverse or meaningful impact of the neighborhood because the lot meets all other building and zoning requirements. ® Page I of 2 F, IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DiFFICUI:fY WAS SELF-CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : I . The difficulty was self -created. THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617.5 (13) wx*wxfr* wwwwwww * w *x *x * www * wwwwwrwwww * * wxr * xxw * xwww * *1tw !! A • ANN EVERETT MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST BE � GRANTED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITION : The lot line separating the two parcels is to be moved at lease 1.09 feet in a northerly direction to satisfy the side set-back requirements. •3 SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY STUART BERG. DISCUSSION : VOTE : YES (5) S. BERG, A. EVE.RETT, C. .HANLEY, O. IELETNIEN, A. LAMOTTE NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) www *w * * * wrrww ,� xxwwwxwwrxxrtwrwwra * w * * xerrrrr ,� wrrwrrxrra * DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED Page 2 of 2