Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-02 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 2 , 2000 AGENDA : ( 1 ) David Boyes y ( 2 ) Richard and Molly Cutia ( 3 ) Jeffrey Walden MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley, Ann Everett, Stuart Berg , and Nick LaMotte , and Oers Kelemen , ALSO PRESENT : Henry Slater, Mrs . Edwin Machen , William Frandsen , Richard Cutia Jr. , David Boyes , and Jeffrey Walden . LEGAL COUNSEL: Randy Marcus • •A# •it•kA**#R*#AR#ffr! •## AA1l4•**fit*11Mf Rf!# Rle1R�# R#AR#4** ( 1 ) David Boyes Chair Hanley opened the hearing of David Boyes of 1 Cricket Lane , Freeville , whom was requesting a variance to construct a garage. Chair Hanley read the attached application and the attached letter dated April 24 , 2000 from the Dryden Town Engineer. H . SLATER : We have received no correspondence or inquiries in return . CHAIR HANLEY. Mr. Boyes , is there anything you or your spokesman would like to add ? W. FRANDSEN : The position that we have the garage located in the survey that we did , is the best location and we are actually in violation by tvm and a half feet , This is a house , which David did not build , but it was built not parallel to the road _ CHAIR HANLEY . Would you like to address the issue that the Town engineer mentioned in his letter? Have you seen that? . FRANDSEN : I would like to see that . R. MAR US : Mr, Chairman while (WiIIiam Frandsen ) is looking at that need to get on the record that I represented Mr . Boyes in the purchase of this property, I know this sort of thing has come up once or twice before , You can ask that the applicant either waive the conflict or you can ask me to abstain from participating . . FRANDSEN ; Is he (Town Engineer) saying that this survey is not correct? CHAIR HANLEY : die moves it for ward with his new drawing , right? Aim I reading this right? S. BERG ; It shows 56 feet instead of 7? CHAIR HANLEY. That is what he seems to be saying it looks like to me . A. EVERETT : It looks like he added this _ Which doesn ' t appear to be on this, W. FRANDSEN : This is where our original garage was _ I see what' s going on here . This is where our original request was for , here , Then when we found out we were in violation we moved it back to this point here . The reason we picked this point is that the 1 back end hits the septic tank and it' s a basement level garage so we still stay in line with this door. This is correct according to our first building permit request, Then we discovered that we were in this violation and that is when we moved the garage back , A, EVERETT: So the two feet plus a few inches is correct for the relief that you' re requesting - S. BERG : 2 , 3 feet . A. EVERETT : Yes , 2 . 3 feet . W. FRAND EN : What he has here is this , which our original plan was . These figures are correct, 6 7 . 7 feet from the center line of the road , which is the variance we are asking for, CHAIR HANLE : Anything else you want to add before we open it up for questions' What do we need to have none from the applicant ( Concerning Rand ' s request) ? R. MAR USa Either ask David if he is willing to waive any conflict of interest , if you (the Board ) are inclined to , or ask me just to stay out of this particular hearing - CHAIR HANLE : Anyone on the Board have any concerns about conflict of interests? ( none ) Then I guess we just need to know that Mr. Boyes doesn 't either, D. BGYE : No , I don ' t, 3 CHAIR HANLEY : Does anyone on the Board have any questions for the applicant, anything they need to have clarified? S. BERG : Where is the nearest structure"? D. BOYES : As you are looking at the face of the house it would be the house to the right. S. BERG : At thIS property line there is another house? You ' re 82 feet from the property line at least the garage will be , Is it a similar distance to the next house after the property line? D. BOYES : Yes . It' s farther than that actually . . BERG% And there is no comment from the neighbors one way or the other? CHAIR HANLEY; No , no reaction at all _ There Is a shed indicated on this older survey , is that gone or is it still there? D . SOYES : No , it' s still there , CHAIR HANLEY : The pond is still there too" D. BO ES : Yes , S. BERG : It looks like the garage is significantly lower than the house , D. BOYES : The basement is a walk out basement so vve will be walking right into the garage . O . KELEMEN : So the garage is subterranean ? W. FRANDSENm. No , it's presently ground level , I D. RANTHAM : Where is the leach field 's D . BOES : The leach field would be to the right of the garage , D. CRANTHAM : So is the garage being built on part of the leach field or any of the distribution lines ? D . BOYE : No , Chair Hanley then closed the hearing and invited the applicant to star or call Henry Slater in the morning to find out the Boards decision , Ole s FINDINGS CHAIR HANLEY : Starting with A. . . A. EVERETT : WelI , the relief he is requesting is just 2 , 3 feet , So it ' s minimal . O. FELENIEN : I too find that the violation is very minor given the amount of area that he has there . S . BERG : The original plans called for a greater variance and they pushed it back as far as they could considering the position of the septic , O. }( ELEMENT So if we extend that I think it is not a self-created hardship . CHAIR HANLEY : Here is what I have , The applicant placed a footprint as far back from the front litre of the property as is possible considenngr the placement of the septic tank therefor the relief of . 3 feet or approximately 3 b of the frontage requirement is minimal and will have little or no effect on the neighborhood. Motion ? A. EVERETT: So moved , CHAIR HANLEY . Second ? S. BERG : Second . CHAIR HANLEY : All those in favor ; 6 ALL: Abe . HAIR HANLEY : Moving on to B . . . N . LAMOTTE : We aIready covered that in the statement about moving it back to the septic tank system . A. EVERETT : Do you went to use what he has written ' " Garage placement based on optimal access to house entry and to septic tank location " ? . BERG : I would add one other thing to that and that it ' s also in consideration of the existing drivewa _ CHAIR HANLEY: Okay , this is what I have: Due to the existing septa tank placement and the expense involved in relocating the existing driveway, coupled with the creed to gain optimum access to the house entry the proposal sought by the applicant is the only feasible answer to this problem+ , Motion ? A. EVERETT : So moved _ CHAIR HANLEY : Second ? S . BERG : Second , CHAIR HANLEY , All in favor? ALL: Afire , CHAIR HANLEY. . . . 7 A. EVERETT : It' s minimal . N . LAMOTTE : Refer to A. HAIR HANLEY: The relies` of 2 3 feet or approximately 3% from the 704bot requirement is minimal. Do I hear a motion? S . BER : So moved _ CHAIR HANLEY : Second ? A. EVERETT : Second . CHAIR HANLEY. All in favor. ALL. Aye . CHAIR HANLEY : D . . . We grad no impact due to statements of fact in A, 8jr and C. Do I here a motion's . BERC : So moved _ CHAIR HANLEY : Second ? A . EVERETT : Second _ CHAIR HANLEY : All those in favor . ALL : Aye . CHAIR HANLEY : E . . . A. EERETT : It wasn ' t self-created mainly because of the placement of the septic tank and the field and the existing driveway . N . LAMOTTE : Well , the location of the house . S CHAIR HANLEY . Because of the placement of the house and the existing septic tank and driveway , the garage must be placed where the applicant has proposed , S . BERG : How old is this house? D . BOYES : 10 years old . H . SLATER : 11 years actually. S. BERG : My point is that 11 years ago it was the same 70 foot setback and a garage wasn ' t considered in the construction of the house . CHAIR HANLEY . Okay , do I hear a motion on the final finding ? I have: Due to the location of the house the existing septic tank and driveway, the garage cannot be located in any other place on the property and the difficulty is therefore not self- created. S. BERG : So moved . O. KELEMEN : Second . CHAIR HANLEY: All those in favor. ALL: Aye . CHAIR HANLEY: This is an exempt action under SEAR section 6-NYCRR 617. 5 c. 12. Therefore based on the findings do I hear a motion ? N . LAMOTTE : I move that the variance be granted . y TOWN OF DR DEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 21 2000 AGENDA . ( 1 ) David Boyer (2 ) Richard and Molly Cutia (3) Jeffrey Walden MEiM . PRESENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Ann Everett, Stuart Berg , and Nick LaMotte , tiers Eelemen , and Recording Secretary Laura Carpenter, ALSO PRESENT : Henry Slater, Mrs _ Edwin Machen , William Frandsen , Richard Cutia Jr_ , David Boyes , and Jeffrey Walden , LEGAL COUNSEL , Randy Marcus *** ft* s **Ib Ir## R ** &*i **# ** #** /dell *** ft** lefle klei t (2 ) Richard and Molly Cutia Chair Hanley opened the application of Richard and Mcl; ly Cutia of 24 Bear Circle , Freevi Ile , who were requesting a variance to construct a single family home at or about 30 Spring Run Road , Freevifle . Chair Hanley read the attached application and notes at the bottom of attachment #2 of the application . CHAIR HANLEY: Does the applicant have anything to add ? R. UTIA : No . Thank you . CHAIR HANLEY. Okay then I ' ll opera it up to questions from the Board , A. EVERETT : Who owns this driveway here and the area here . R. CUTIA: Ithaca Produce _ 10 A. EVERETT : If you listen to Henry' s possible solutions , who owns the 50 feet? R. CUTIA : My father owns that . A. EVERETT : Okay so it would be easy for you to purchase that . R. CUTIA : That' s correct. A. EVERETT : Are you going to buy this parcel then , is that right? R. CUTIA : That' s correct . S. BERG : Do you have a preference as to this or this ( indicating the location and length of driveways labeled on attachment # 2 ) . R. CUTIA : This one ( indicating top driveway, labeled secondary on attachment #2 ) would be more cost effective , obviously Obecause of the distance of the driveway that would have to be placed there . But there is no way to put a street/house number there. A. EVERETT : Henry , if he purchases this extra 50 feet, has his mailbox down there , he can still use this ( secondary driveway on attachment #2 ) for a driveway. H . SLATER : I don 't see any reason why he can 't as long as it is clear where Spring Run Road would be for 911 emergency service. A. EVERETT : So what you' re saying is that he would have to have access here ( lower driveway an attachment # ) for emergency vehicles. H . SLATER : Yes , S. BERG : Henry , I know there has been a situation like this before where the numbering system does not allow an intermediate number_ Have they ever used something else like 34A? H . SLATER : No , because the 911 system as we kn ow it today will not accept partial numbers , A. EVERETT ; Rich , will there be one house on that 3 _ 5 acres? R. UTIA : Yes - ATTY. MAR US : Henry , the solution you ' re proposing is solely for the purpose of coming up with a sequential number , H . SLATER : Correct . It doesn ' t make any difference in frontage - ATTY. MARU : If that solution is acceptable to the applicant , is it possible to go another 26 feet and eliminate the need for the variance ? H . SLATER : I don' t believe so _ I have been instructed in the past that you only look at contiguous frontage , not split frontages , Therefore , if you did that it would leave no potential for the development of the remaining acreage of the lot as it exists today , At least by variance in the future it could save an additional 4 -50 feet for the remaining portion of that lot if it 12 ® were ever to be developed . In any event the 99 feet wouldn 't be sufficient and we would be looking at another variance so I don't think we create any new scenarios that way . Again it is only a suggestion , it is up to you as a Board to decide whether it is appropriate or not . A. EVERETT : Henry , why wasn 't this subdivision a go way back when . It has something to do with the health department or something? H . SLATER: It was originally laid out, and obviously as I have explained in other places , this (secondary driveway on attachment #2 ) was reserved for a street to come out and access several Jim lots that were back here. This street would have actually continued out here and if I remember correctly from some very old drawings I have seen that have since been abandoned , this was split again similar to Spring Run with houses on either side. They were half-acre lots and then the health department standards were uniformly changed in 1970 to eliminate half-acre lots . Since that subdivision had no investment that phase had never been developed in any way . It was simply abandoned instead of trying to figure out how to make 1 acre lots out of them . 13 CHAIR HANLEY , Does anyone else have any questions for either Henry or Mr. Cutia . O. KELEMEN : It says the estimated project cost is 25 , 000 , Is that correct? R. CUTIA : No , that is a mistake . O. KELEMEN : Is it possible to have a Route 13 entry to your property? I know that comer, it' s a bad corner. R. CUTIA : Not possible . There is a building that is going in on that piece of property, an Ithaca Produce expansion . N . LAMOTTE : From memory I believe that you had a similar request for this Board back several years ago . I asked Henry if this was the same property and I believe that his response was that it was the same request . I haven 't read any of this I ' m just 1 going from memory . At that time you were living in Truxton . The neighbor came in contending that he had an easement or right of way or something across part of this property . Because you were not here we had no way of verifying that so it was put on the shelf waiting for you to come back and demonstrate that your title was clean . Randy, since this is a new hearing , but this is already on the record , how do we address this? ATTY. MARCUS & We have that neighbor here tonight so that may be a moot question as to whether this has to be entered . 14 MRS . MACHEN : My lot was sold as a building lot. They were suppose to run Spring Run road straight down to ( route ) 13 and they had that all marked out in building lots . But they never did it and then they sold it as one big lot. R. CUTIA : At that time the bank would not let the property go. The bank wouldn't sell the property because there was a mortgage on the building . We scrapped it because we couldn 't get the property. A. EVERETT : Which property was that? R. CUTIA : That was a different piece of property it was the property that is adjacent to what Mrs . Machen is talking about . We O were thinking about putting a place right on the corner. I can 1 show you better on that map if you want to look at that. Whether there is a right of way there or not I ' m not sure but it wouldn 't be effected at all in this project . L. CARPENTER : I don 't think she understands that , I don 't think she has seen this map . CHAIR HANLEY: Have you seen this map Mrs. Machen ? Do you want to come up and take a look? R. CUTIA : (To Mrs . Machen ) Your property would be down here , Where we are going to be is right next to this place going this way, not where is was before. 15 MRS . MACHEN : The problem before was when they put your pole in , they ran the guide wires right over. All want is a path to go down to my property. S . BERG : This doesn ' t look like it will effect that at all . R. CUTIA : This particular thing will not effect that side of the street at all . MRS . MACHEN : Sounds good to me . I have no problem with it. I just want to be able to get in and out of my property (that way ) because when I bought it that was the way it was . The way they had it before was, the telephone pole was in the middle of where I go down . R. CUTIA : I had requested that the pole be moved in 1992 because all the wires crossed on that side of the street and come meet over here. CHAIR HANLEY. Does anyone else on the Board have more questions? Everybody clear? N . LAMOTTE : Am I totally clear that Henry' s proposed scenario of the additional 50 feet is agreeable to the applicant? R. CUTIA : Yes , CHAIR HANLEY : Does anyone else in the audience want to comment on this application? 16 There were no further comments or questions so Chair Hanley closed the hearing and invited the applicant to stay or call Henry Slater in the morning to find out the Boards decision . 0 17 # fff**ff*fffff*# !## !#!*# !*ff*!!##*# f* FINDINGS CHAIR HANLEY : Do we need any discussion on this? O. KELEMEN : My concern is that he bought this property knowing what the problems might be . So I ' m wondering if it is self-created . S. BERG : Well even if it is it doesn't preclude it from being approved . O . KELEMEN : I guess I ' m just saying it concerns me a little bit . He owns that ( building in front of the lot in question ) . L. CARPENTER : His father owns it . His father I think also owns the land . He would actually be buying this parcel from him . He' s owned it Dofor several years now. H . SLATER : I think Richard and Molly own that. CHAIR HANLEY. He said he would have to buy it from his father. That is certainly a point . There was previous request for a variance . ATTY. MARCUS : It appears from the discussion that the previous request was for a different proposal . CHAIR HANLEY . Are we all right with going ahead and writing the findings? H . SLATER : Richard Cutia Senior does own the entire parcel . A. EVERETT : When you say the entire parcel , what is that? How many acres? H . SLATER : Somewhere in the neighborhood of thirteen acres. Which is includes the Ithaca Produce cite . CHAIR HANLEY: Okay that brings us to A . . . Stewart , are you suggesting that we take number one? S . BERG : I think we should consider building upon that statement. CHAIR HANLEY. Okay so where do we begin building upon that first statement? ATTY. MARCUS : I think the statements that are provided are really conclusions , not statements of fact . Statements to support those would be appropriate . S. BERG : Is this considered a flag lot? ATTY. MARCUS : Yes , this is a classic example of a flag lot . 00 CHAIR HANLEY. So what I have here is : The proposed construction will be on a large lot (over three acres) it will be set back and less visible from the road than the existing structures on the surrounding properties. The proposed constructing Therefore there will be no detriment or change in the character of the neighborhood. O. KELEMEN : What water system is going to support this home? A well or part of the Yellow Barn system ? H . SLATER : Most houses have wells on that side of Yellow Barn . CHAIR HANLEY : Are we okay with what we have here ? 19 0. KELEMEN : Mr. Cutia does not own this , his father does . We are granting the variance the variance to him on property his father owns isn't that correct? H . SLATER : That' s not true is it Randy? We are granting the variance to the lot , not to a particular person . ATTY. MARCUS : Yes , the variance goes with the land . Technically you should have the property owners signature on either the application or authorization from the property owner to the applicant . S. BERG : So we can make that contingent upon his father signing the application ? oATTY. MARCUS : Yes . CHAIR HANLEY: If everyone feels comfortable going on then we can move on . Do I hear a motion on this first item? S. BERG : I make a motion that we accept it as read . CHAIR HANLEY : Second ? A. EVERETT : Second . CHAIR HANLEY: All those in favor. ALL : Aye . CHAIR HANLEY . Okay then B . . . 20 There is no other adequate road frontage available for access to the building lot other than the two 50 foot strips proposed by the applicant Okay so do I hear a motion on that? O. KELEMEN : So moved . CHAIR HANLEY. Second ? M . LAMOTTE : Second . CHAIR HANLEY : All those in favor. ALL: Aye, CHAIR HANLEY : C . . . N . LAMOTTE : It is substantial but refer to B , that there is no other property available for access . CHAIR HANLEY: It is substantial, but as indicated in item B. there is no other alternative feasible to the applicant. A. EVERETT * So moved . CHAIR HANLEY : Second? S. BERG : Second . CHAIR HANLEY : All those in favor? ALL : Aye . CHAIR HANLEY: D . . . N . LAMOTTE : It will eliminate all the numbering problem created by using this bottom driveway . Label this map as draft one or something and then refer to that . 21 CHAIR HANLEY . Henry , any comments on that corner? H . SLATER : My experience with that is generally during the daytime and I don ' t see that much traffic so I don' t think my input is of any value . S . BERG : So you don' t see that much traffic there during the day, is that what you ' re saying ? H . SLATER : Right. CHAIR HANLEY : What if we try the last sentence in his statement . The proposed variance will allow access to a building lot that is consistent with all the lots in the neighborhood . ATTY. MARCUS : I don't really know whether the phrase " consistent with" is ® applicable in this instance. S . BERG : It' s actually not consistent . It' s actually bigger than the other lots in the area and the other ones are not flag lots. ATTY. MARCUS : Again as you have done before , you may want to just refer back to item A. CHAIR HANLEY: So you could say : There would be no adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood due to the reasons stated in item A . Do I hear a motion? S. BERG : So moved . A. EVERETT : Second . 22 CHAIR HANLEY : All those in favor. ALL : Aye . CHAIR HANLEY : E . . . N . LAMOTTE : Should we go through that whole litany of Henry' s about that the original plans called for . . , that' s the reason this problem was created . H . SLATER : You mean take from what already exists? You certainly have my approval . O. KELEMEN : I ' m sure it's not been created yet . He does not own the property . H . SLATER : I think Nick was talking about how the land went through subdivision and that' s why it exists how it does today. N . LAMOTTE : Oers is back to the point that he raised earlier I think about the fact that Rich doesn' t own the property yet. S . BERG : Yes , we would have to make the decision contingent upon the property owner. O. KELEMEN : As long as we include that in the statement I ' m happy . ATTY. MARCUS : As is almost always the case you can argue that this is self- created or not . I think it' s easier arguing that it is self- created if you are looking at the fact that it' s the same underlying owner that has divided it up such as to leave himself with only 50 foot of frontage. r 23 S . BERG : Where these lot originally owned by his father, the ones that the homes are on now? A. EVERETT : No . ATTY. MARCUS : That ' s the impression I got . No? CHAIR HANLEY. What is the pleasure of the Board ? Simply to say that it was self-created ? S. BERG : How is it self-created ? A. EVERETT : Mr. Cutia wants to develop the property so that that acreage is without road frontage . S . BERG : But he had no choice the other properties were owned by other people . ® A. EVERETT : He has all this land here , but he chose to make this a lot for a single family home . S. BERG : You' re saying he could have placed the home somewhere else that would have allowed him the footage? A. EVERETT: He could have done something else . S . BERG : Give me an example . A. EVERETT : This could have been all a part of a big commercial development . S . BERG : But you can always say that they not do what they are asking to do , you could always say then that it is self- created . 24 CHAIR HANLEY : That' s the hang -up we always come down to . A. EVERETT : But it doesn 't effect the granting of the variance. CHAIR HANLEY: Okay , so we are simple going to say for E that the difficulty was self-created. Do I hear a motion? A. EVERETT: So moved . CHAIR HANLEY . Second ? S. BERG : Second . CHAIR HANLEY : All those in favor. ALL : Aye . CHAIR HANLEY . Okay , this variance is exempt according to 6NYCRR 617 -C- ® 13 . A. EVERETT : Henry, if we grant this variance with your suggestion to move the property 50 foot to the north , do we have to say anything about the driveway? H . SLATER : I would say that you should say that the property be numbered at that location so as to be consistent with 911 numbering schemes . S. BERG : Does it have to be the driveway next to the mailbox? H . SLATER : I think it should be because emergency services would try to access the property there. That doesn 't mean that he can 't have a second driveway where he wanted to . 25 A. EVERETT& Do you monitor that or do we have to say the driveway must be. . . H . SLATER : Any condition that you put on the variance, we see to it that it occurs to the best of our ability . ATTY. MARCUS : I think part of what Ann is asking though is would it make it easier for you and would it better insure compliance if the condition says that there has to be a driveway within that northern 50 foot , that can provide emergency vehicle access to the residence . H . SLATER : It makes it much easier because if he doesn ' t do it the variance is null and void . l� S . BERG : By leaving out anything that he might do with the other one are we implying that he could put a second driveway in there? ATTY. MARCUS : I think the more specific you are the better. CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE • The purchase of the property must include the additional 50 feet on the northern side as outlined on attachment #2 of the applicants filing . • The driveway providing access to the improvements will connect with Spring Run Road within the northerly 50-foot strip ; 26 and be maintained so as to provide emergency vehicle access. This does not preclude an additional driveway between 34 and 36 Spring Run Road . • The dwelling shall be identified as 30 Spring Run Road . • There shall be no improvement on the subject lot closer than 25 feet to the rear property line of lot numbers 32 , 34 , 36 and 38 Spring Run Road . • Current zoning officer must receive a signed statement of authorization from the current property owner. CHAIR HANLEY : Based on the findings the motion is to grant the variance with the numerated conditions . Do I here a motion? S . BERG : So moved , CHAIR HANLEY: Second ? A . EVERETT : Second . CHAIR HANLEY: All those in favor say aye . ALL : Aye CHAIR HANLEY : The variance is granted . 49 27