Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-03 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 5, 2001 AGENDA . ( 1 ) Tastee Treat Ice Cream - Donn Sopp O ( 2) James and Dorothy Cutting MEM . PRESENT: Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Oers Kelemen , Anne Everett , and Nick LaMotte . ALSO PRESENT : Henry Slater, Deb Grantham , Donn Sopp , James Cutting , Dorothy Cutting , Paul Conklin , and Nancy Conklin . LEGAL COUNSEL , Randy Marcus ( 1 ) Tastee Treat 7 : 31 PM Chair Hanley opened the hearing of Donn Sopp, owner of The Tastee Treat, 19 Ellis Drive, who was requesting a variance to Section 1206. 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance, and read the application into the file. Chair Hanley then opened the floor for questions and discussion. Donn Sopp: The structure is there now with the adequate support for the cooler that was intended to go there. Right now I have a small one in place because we ran over budget . As far as the structure itself goes , I didn't realize that anything that covers the ground was considered a structure . A shed to me is kind of a temporary structure. There are slabs currently on the backside of the building for air conditioning units and rear entries. Those were indicated on the plan when the construction was being done . Stuart Berg : How did this happen? You had a permit for the construction . Didn ' t someone have to come look at it? Was this at the same time that the new building was built? Die �1 C� Donn Sopp : When the original building was put up , my intent all along was to have a walk in cooler. There was always a hole in the wall . Stuart Berg : When was the building built? Donn Sopp: About a year ago . Stuart Berg : And then the slab was built at the same time? Donn Sopp : Yes . Anne Everett: What kind of arrangements were on the original plans which were , I assume , accepted by the Town Board ? Donn Sopp: I think there were two drawings. This project has gone on for about four years . Different drawings have come and gone. There was one set with the original building , which did not show any slab , just door cuts . Later on another plan was submitted . That may have shown a slab on the back of the building . That came about when the driveway road cuts were being established . Anne Everett: Did you have any further explanation of what was going on that slab in those original plans? Donn Sopp : No. Anne Everett: It was just listed as a slab? Donn Sopp : I don' t think it ever came up . Until I received notification to apply for a variance. Stuart Berg : Henry, would just the slab alone require a variance in this case or was it the structure? Henry Slater: It was just the structure . Chair Hanley: The slab we are talking about right now is just under the cooler. Henry , that wouldn't have been on the original building plans? Or would it have been ? Henry Slater: I don 't recall . So much time has gone by since the time it was approved . Different plans came and went and I think there was confusion created by the re-design of the building . However, the basic footprint of the building never changed . Anne Everett : Would you automatically assume that this type of business would have that type of a thing out back. I ' m thinking of Burger King, McDonald's, they all have these little enclosures out back. Would that have been discussed at the original approval process? Henry Slater: That' s too far back to recall . We could go back and look at the original minutes. I don 't recall it being discussed . The first time that I became aware of it was when I saw it constructed a few weeks ago . Stuart Berg : It looks like the building is right at the 15 foot . Henry Slater: 15 '/z . Anne Everett : Henry I have a question about that . On this map the 15400t goes back and it looks like there is a good 3 feet from the property line to the fence . Is that how it is ? There is 18 feet back there? 2 • Henry Slater: Kevin measured it today and told me that it is 15 . 5 minimum from building to property line . Anne Everett: And then the other measurement I asked him to check what was it ? Was it 3 '/z feet? Henry Slater: 3 3/2 feet is what the cooler separation is from the property line. Stuart Berg : So this is a slab with a shed on it and inside the shed is a cooler. Donn Sopp: Right. Stuart Berg : Does the shed take up the whole area of the slab or is it slightly set in from the slab? Donn Sopp: There is approximately a 6 inch ledge all around . Anne Everett : It is a really substantial building . It doesn' t appear to be temporary. It' s very permanent. It' s well constructed . But it is rather large and it is very close to the property line . What other options do you have? Can that cooler be located within the building ? Donn Sopp : The way it' s set up now, not without re-arranging a lot. Anne Everett: So you actually never had plans for it to be located in the building ? You always knew that it would be located out there? Donn Sopp : Right. I didn 't think I would be violating anything . Stuart Berg : Looks like maybe the building is 10x10 or 12x12 ? Donn Sopp : I wanted to put a 1000 cooler in . So I made this thing 1202 to allow for ventilation , repairs, etc. ® Stuart Berg : Is it connected to the existing building? Donn Sopp : Yes . Nick LaMotte : Where is the compressor? Donn Sopp: On top of the cooler. Nick LaMotte : And that will be the same when you get your larger cooler? Donn Sopp : Yes , Oers Kelemen : ( To Nick LaMotte) , You ' re concerned about it being outside the building ? Nick LaMotte : No, I was just wondering if he adds a larger cooler and compressor if we were going to find that we need to come back and go through this again . Chair Hanley : The pad for the cooler shed was poured at the same time as the original foundation was? Donn Sopp : No . It was poured afterward because of the nature of the structure . The final grating for drainage had to be attended to . It was pretty much one of the last things to be addressed once all the contours were settled on . Chair Hanley: So the original intent for the property was for this to be a Tastee Treat from the beginning ? Donn Sopp : Yes , Chair Hanley: Henry , you don' t recall if that was part of the original building footprint? ® 3 0 M A F T • Henry Slater: I don 't recall it being part of it , no . What Mr. Sopp says tends to say that that is probably true . Chair Hanley : How long ago was this approved ? Henry Slater : 1996, Anne Everett: One option would have been to put it out here Mr. Sopp ( indicating a location on the left side of the building toward Rt . 13 ) . Why was that not considered? Donn Sopp: In the parking lot? Anne Everett: This area over here , yes. Donn Sopp : Visual aesthetics . Anne Everett : Just mainly visual aesthetics? Donn Sopp: Yes, and parking area . We are required to have so many square feet of parking . Anne Everett: There doesn't appear to be any spots over there though . Donn Sopp : We have to have a back up area , so people are able to back out and go . Being on the backside of the building it' s not quite so obvious , and acts as a screen . I have tables over here so if people are sitting there they don't have to see what's going on behind the building . Anne Everett : There are two other units in the building , spaces for businesses . I ' m just wondering if for some reason those other two units might encounter this kind of a problem . Donn Sopp : I don 't know, I think given what I ' m going through right now, anyone else that comes in there will be enlightened . Stuart Berg : So you use one third of this building at that end? Donn Sopp: Yes . Stuart Berg : So it is equally divided into three stores? Donn Sopp: Yes. Chair Hanley: Do you know what kind of businesses you would anticipate would be interested in the other two? Donn Sopp: I have no idea . The building is suitable for professionals . That is what I would like to see go in there . I don ' t think there is much need for more food in Dryden . Chair Hanley: Henry can you tell us anything about safety concerns for this structure being that close to the property line? Henry Slater: ln this particular situation the only thing I could think of would be fire fighting capabilities . With a fence right behind the building it might possibly be a hindrance for the firefighters . Stuart Berg : Where are the doorways in this structure? They aren't shown on this map . Donn Sopp : They are on the front . If you divide the building into thirds , then about the middle of each unit are front and rear doors . Stuart Berg : Where is the rear door in this particular unit in relationship to the cooler? M M A F 7 • Donn Sopp : If you ' re looking at the front it' s just to the right of the cooler addition on the plan . Stuart Berg : It does open up out to the back? Donn Sopp: Yes . There is also a door on the addition that faces the right side of the building as you are looking at it from the front . Stuart Berg : So the doors are 90 degrees to each other? Donn Sopp : Right, Henry Slater: But that rear door cannot be considered an exit because you cannot exit through a kitchen so it can 't be marked for an exit for any purpose . Anne Everett: What do you have in the back rooms? When you go into the front of the building and there is the counter, what do you have in the one or two back rooms there? Donn Sopp: There is a bathroom back there, and then there is a kitchen area , an ice cream preparation area , more refrigeration , a lot of sinks , and more storage. Chair Hanley: So you make your own product and there are not a lot of deliveries coming in ? Donn Sopp : I do have a few deliveries that come in . Chair Hanley: And how are the deliveries unloaded? Donn Sopp: Through the front door. Chair Hanley : Who built the shed ? Donn Sopp : I did . Chair Hanley: Who poured the pad ? Donn Sopp : I did that as well . Chair Hanley : Does anyone have any more questions? There were no further questions, and Chair Hanley closed the hearing and instructed the applicant that he was welcome to stay and wait for a decision or that he could go home and call Henry Slater in the morning. FINDINGS The Board members as a description of their overall positions gave the following statements.- Stuart Berg : I think of this as an applicant coming to us prior to building . The fact that it has already been built doesn 't matter really. I try to divorce myself of the fact that it is there. In thinking of it that way I don't see a lot of options based on the existing building and existing structure of the parking lot and the fact that he only has that third of the building . Going out into the parking lot , as Mr. Sopp points out would be a problem for the cars backing up and ® 5 0 0 A F T pulling out . I think based on that and the fact that there were no complaints from the neighbors I would approve . Anne Everett: I kind of disagree with Stuart , I think precisely because he built it. I can ' t believe he didn ' t know he didn ' t have to check with Henry on this . It' s a very substantial looking addition . I think precisely for that reason if he would have come to the Board in the beginning then maybe the design would have been changed . I do think it could have gone on the one side of the building . I know it' s unsightly but that' s the price of doing business . It' s very close to the back property line and I don' t think that the parking space is a problem . I think it could be situated in such a way that parking wouldn 't be a problem . It just seems to be a lot of business for such a little space . Oers Kelemen : I 'm sort of torn on this one too. I don 't like the notion that it was built probably with precognition . However, I ' m not sure that we should be in the business of punishing . I guess what we really have to look at is whether it is or is not a detriment to the Town or the neighbors. Not so much the process. It could be argued that you could have built that any number of places . You do have land to make more parking spaces. The number of parking spaces could have been dealt with in such a manner that the cooler could have gone inside . ® Nick LaMotte: I ' m sympathetic to the comments that Stuart made , and also the comment that Oers made of what we are here for and procedures we are suppose to be following relative to the granting the variance . Looking for the injury to the Town versus the benefit to the applicant. Injury to the Town should not be the same as our personal feelings . At the same time it' s always unfortunate when someone goes ahead with something like this and comes to us after the fact. However, as Oers pointed out, we are not here to punish . I am very sympathetic to Stuart' s comments and I think we should be looking for the possible injury to the Town by the granting of this variance . The Board took a five-minute break while Henry Slater retrieved the original application for a building permit. Prior to writing findings the Board members asked Mr. Paul Conklin of 128 North Street, if he had anything he would like to contribute. Paul Conklin : We have a direct view of the building . Where the walk in cooler is now, it blends right in with the building . I don't see any objection to it. If it were moved around the comer I think it would make the building look funny. If the new structure hadn' t been seen before it was painted it might not have even been noticed . G • A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The structure in question is a substantial 12x12 foot addition attached to the rear of the building and extending to the rear 3 . 5 feet from the rear property line . It is a soundly built attachment and aesthetically pleasing as an addition to the existing structure . The surrounding property owners have expressed no concern with the proposal and the property owner from across the street supports the current site rather than the conforming alternative sites on the property . Motion: S. Berg Second. N. LaMotte In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 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 : Placing the structure on the east side of the building may result in the loss of 1 parking space . Current placement is I a A F T the most aesthetically pleasing on the site , as stated in finding A. Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor. 4 Opposed: 0 c. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The requested relief is substantial since it is 11 '/Z feet from the required 15-Yz foot rear set back. Motion . A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The Town engineer in a letter dated June 5`h , 2001 found no need of further study of the drainage on the property since the drainage was properly routed under the cooler by way of a storm pipe . The design of the addition is in keeping with 8 0 0 & F 7 0 the lines and color schemes of the current structure , and therefore is no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood . Motion: S. Berg Second: A . Everett In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The difficulty was self-created . Motion: A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor.' 3 Opposed: 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEOR SECTION 6NYCRR-617. 5c -7c& 12c Motion : Grant Variance : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( 3 ) Oers Kelemen , Nick LaMotte , and Stuart Berg . NO : ( 1 ) Anne Everett ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) 9 dad DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED ( 2 ) Cutting 7 : 53 PEA Chair Hanley opened the hearing of James and Dorothy Cutting of 460 Hunt Hill Rd. , who were requesting a variance to Section 804. 1 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance, and read the application and a letter from the applicants into the file. He then reminded the Board that the Cuttings had also applied and were granted a variance in 1988 after a fire destroyed their former home. The variance allowed the Cuttings to re-build closer than the required 70 ' feet from the center line. Chair Hanley read the findings from the 1988 variance, and then opened the floor for questions and discussion Oers Kelemen : I drove up to the address yesterday to have a look at the property . I saw the hole in the ground and I saw the stone fence . Dorothy Cutting : We 've dug the footers. Oers Kelemen : The map indicates that you' re 20 feet from the property line . How far are you from the fence? James Cutting : We on this side but not too far from it. Oers Kelemen : It seems like the property line really jags off. +� James Cutting : It' s like a 45-degree angle . Oers Kelemen : Do you maintain that angle? James Cutting : The hedgerow is pretty well straight down through there , our property line is 8 or 10 feet to the other side of that. Oers Kelemen : The far side from you or the near side? James Cutting : Towards the fence. Chair Hanley : Would you like to come up and point that out on the map just so everyone is clear about where the lines are? Mr. Cutting clarified the property lines for the Board members. James Cutting : The property line is 6 or 7 feet toward the house from the stone fence. Oers Kelemen : That does maintain 20 feet? It didn't look like it would . James Cutting : It does . What happened was that the footers were dug extremely wide , and not really where we wanted them . The 14 feet from our house that we were going to bring this is more like 20 or 22 feet . They made them too wide . Henry Slater: All they have to maintain on the side lot line is 15 feet . Dorothy Cutting : It was 22 or 24 when we measured it . From the end of the new addition at the closest corner. 10 D 3 a F Anne Everett: This is far from a level flat lot . The back has one side that goes down and the side by the driveway is slopped as well . So there really isn ' t any other place for an addition , Dorothy Cutting : That' s right. The only other place would be further back away from the road but that would be over the well . There were no further questions and Chair Hanley closed the hearing and explained that the Board would now deliberate on the first application and then come back to deliberate on the second. As always, Chair Hanley explained to the applicants that they were welcome to stay or could call Henry Slater in the morning for the decision FINDINGS A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The structure is on Hunt Hill Rd . , which is an older neighborhood in which the majority of homes within '/z mile of the applicant' s property have similar front set back issues . Since the new construction essentially extends the lines of the house and does not substantially move closer to the road than the existing structure , there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties . Motion: S. Berg Second: A . Everett ® 1 � ° d In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 Be 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 : It is not feasible to build an addition in any other location on the property because the front of the house is too close to the road , the opposite side of the house has the garage doors and the driveway and is still the same 50 feet from the center line . The back of the house will also interfere with the piping for the well . Motion : A . Everett Second: Stuart Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 c . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The request to reduce the set back from 70 feet to 50 feet is numerically substantial . However, because the existing house is as close as 52 feet from the road this addition will not appear visually substantial . 12 © ° a 3 Motion: S. Berg Second: A . Everett � f� U In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : There will be no undesirable detriment to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the house is surrounded by woods and swamp on the sides and a horse pasture in the rear. Neither side nor the back could easily be developed . None of the neighbors are close , the closest being 113 of a mile away . There will be no litter or waste coming from that room as the room will not have plumbing . The siding will be matched to the existing house . Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The difficulty was self-created . 13 Die • a [� Motion: S. Berg Second: Anne Everett In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 6NYCRR-617. 5-cA2 & 13 Motion : Grant Variance: A. Everett Second : S . Berg VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Oers Kelemen , Nick LaMotte , Anne Everett, and Stuart Berg . sNO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION@VARIANCE GRANTED 14 • TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 5 , 2001 AGENDA . ( 1 ) Tastee Treat Ice Cream - Donn Sopp ( 2 ) James and Dorothy Cutting MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Oers Kelemen , Anne Everett , and Nick LaMotte , ALSO PRESENT . Henry Slater , Deb Grantham lames Cutting , Dorothy Cutting , P - `'r nklin _ LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus V - fv ( 1 ) Tastee Treat 7 : 31 PM Chair Hanley opened the hearing of Donn Sopp, owner of The Tastee Treat, 11 Ellis Drive, who was requesting a variance to Section 1206. 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance, and read the application into the file. Chair Hanley then opened the floor for questions and discussion . Donn Sopp: The structure is there now with the adequate support for the cooler that was intended to go there . Right now I have a small one in place because we ran over budget . As far as the structure itself goes , I didn' t realize that anything that covers the ground was considered a structure . A shed to me is kind of a temporary structure . There are slabs currently on the backside of the building for air conditioning units and rear entries . Those were indicated on the plan when the construction was being done. Stuart Berg : How did this happen? You had a permit for the construction . Didn't someone have to come look at it? Was this at the same time that the new building was built? . Donn Sopp : When the original building was put up , my intent all along was to have a walk in cooler. There was always a hole in the wall . Stuart Berg : When was the building built? Donn Sopp : About a year ago . Stuart Berg : And then the slab was built at the same time? Donn Sopp : Yes . Anne Everett : What kind of arrangements were on the original plans which were , I assume , accepted by the Town Board ? Donn Sopp : I think there were two drawings . This project has gone on for about four years . Different drawings have come and gone . There was one set with the original building , which did not show any slab , just door cuts. Later on another plan was submitted . That may have shown a slab on the back of the building . That came about when the driveway road cuts were being established . Anne Everett : Did you have any further explanation of what was going on that slab in those original plans? Donn Sopp : No . Anne Everett : It was just listed as a slab? Donn Sopp : I don ' t think it ever came up. Until I received notification to apply for a variance . Stuart Berg : Henry , would just the slab alone require a variance in this case or was it the structure? Henry Slater: It was just the structure . Chair Hanley : The slab we are talking about right now is just under the cooler. Henry , that wouldn 't have been on the original building plans ? Or would it have been ? Henry Slater: I don' t recall . So much time has gone by since the time it was approved . Different plans came and went and I think there was confusion created by the redesign of the building . However, the basic footprint of the building never changed . Anne Everett : Would you automatically assume that this type of business would have that type of a thing out back. I ' m thinking of Burger King, McDonald's, they all have these little enclosures out back. Would that have been discussed at the original approval process? Henry Slater: That' s too far back to recall . We could go back and look at the original minutes . I don ' t recall it being discussed . The first time that I became aware of it was when I saw it constructed a few weeks ago . Stuart Berg : It looks like the building is right at the 15 foot . Henry Slater: 15 '/ . Anne Everett : Henry I have a question about that . On this map the 15-foot goes back and it looks like there is a good 3 feet from the property line to the fence . Is that how it is ? There is 18 feet back there? 2 ® Henry Slater: Kevin measured it today and told me that it is 15 . 5 minimum from building to property line . Anne Everett: And then the other measurement I asked him to check what was it ? Was it 3 '/2 feet? Henry Slater: 3 '/2 feet is what the cooler separation is from the fence line . Stuart Berg : So this is a slab with a shed on it and inside the shed is a cooler. Donn Sopp : Right , Stuart Berg : Does the shed take up the whole area of the slab or is it slightly set in from the slab? Donn Sopp: There is approximately a 6 inch ledge all around . Anne Everett : It is a really substantial building . It doesn' t appear to be temporary. It 's very permanent. It' s well constructed . But it is rather large and it is very close to the property line. What other options do you have? Can that cooler be located within the building ? Donn Sopp : The way it' s set up now, not without re-arranging a lot. Anne Everett : So you actually never had plans for it to be located in the building? You always knew that it would be located out there? Donn Sopp: Right . I didn' t think I would be violating anything . Stuart Berg : Looks like maybe the building is 10x10 or 12x12 ? Donn Sopp : I wanted to put a 10x10 cooler in . So I made this thing 12x12 to allow for ventilation , repairs , etc. Stuart Berg : Is it connected to the existing building? Donn Sopp : Yes . Nick LaMotte : Where is the compressor? Donn Sopp: On top of the cooler. Nick LaMotte : And that will be the same when you get your larger cooler? Donn Sopp . Yes . Oers Kelemen : (To Nick LaMotte) , You' re concerned about it being outside the building? Nick LaMotte: No , I was just wondering if he adds a larger cooler and compressor if we were going to find that we need to come back and go through this again . Chair Hanley: The pad for the cooler shed was poured at the same time as the original foundation was? Donn Sopp : No . It was poured afterward because of the nature of the structure . The final grading for drainage had to be attended to . It was pretty much one of the last things to be addressed once all the contours were settled on . Chair Hanley : So the original intent for the property was for this to be a Tastee Treat from the beginning? Donn Sopp: Yes . Chair Hanley: Henry , you don 't recall if that was part of the original building footprint? 3 ® Henry Slater: I don' t recall it being part of it , no . What Mr. Sopp says tends to say that that is probably true . Chair Hanley: How long ago was this approved ? Henry Slater: 1996. Anne Everett: One option would have been to put it out here Mr. Sopp ( indicating a location on the left side of the building toward Rt . 13) . Why was that not considered ? Donn Sopp : In the parking lot? Anne Everett : This area over here , yes . Donn Sopp: Visual aesthetics . Anne Everett: Just mainly visual aesthetics? Donn Sopp ; Yes , and parking area . We are required to have so many square feet of parking . Anne Everett: There doesn 't appear to be any spots over there though . Donn Sopp: We have to have a back up area , so people are able to back out and go . Being on the backside of the building it' s not quite so obvious , and acts as a screen . I have tables over here so if people are sitting there they don 't have to see what' s going on behind the building . Anne Everett : There are two other units in the building , spaces for businesses . I ' m just wondering if for some reason those other two units might encounter this kind of a problem . Donn Sopp : I don't know, I think given what I ' m going through right now, anyone else that comes in there will be enlightened . Stuart Berg . So you use one third of this building at that end ? Donn Sopp: Yes. Stuart Berg : So it is equally divided into three stores? Donn Sopp : Yes . Chair Hanley : Do you know what kind of businesses you would anticipate would be interested in the other two? Donn Sopp : I have no idea . The building is suitable for professionals . That is what I would like to see go in there . I don' t think there is much need for more food in Dryden . Chair Hanley: Henry can you tell us anything about safety concerns for this structure being that close to the property line? Henry Slater: ln this particular situation the only thing I could think of would be fire fighting capabilities . With a fence right behind the building it might possibly be a hindrance for the firefighters . Stuart Berg : Where are the doorways in this structure? They aren ' t shown on this map . Donn Sopp: They are on the front. If you divide the building into thirds , then about the middle of each unit are front and rear doors . Stuart Berg : Where is the rear door in this particular unit in relationship to the cooler? Donn Sopp : If you ' re looking at the front it' s just to the right of the cooler addition on the plan . Stuart Berg : It does open up out to the back ? Donn Sopp : Yes . There is also a door on the addition that faces the right side of the building as you are looking at it from the front. Stuart Berg : So the doors are 90 degrees to each other? Donn Sopp : Right . Henry Slater: But that rear door cannot be considered an exit because you cannot exit through a kitchen so it can 't be marked for an exit for any purpose. Anne Everett: What do you have in the back rooms? When you go into the front of the building and there is the counter, what do you have in the one or two back rooms there? Donn Sopp: There is a bathroom back there , and then there is a kitchen area , an ice cream preparation area , more refrigeration , a lot of sinks , and more storage . Chair Hanley : So you make your own product and there are not a lot of deliveries coming in ? Donn Sopp: I do have a few deliveries that come in . Chair Hanley: And how are the deliveries unloaded ? Donn Sopp : Through the front door. Chair Hanley : Who built the shed? ® Donn Sopp. I did . Chair Hanley: Who poured the pad? Donn Sopp : I did that as well . Chair Hanley : Does anyone have any more questions? There were no further questions, and Chair Hanley closed the hearing and instructed the applicant that he was welcome to stay and wait for a decision or that he could go home and call Henry Slater in the morning. FINDINGS The Board members as a description of their overall positions gave the following statements: Stuart Berg : I think of this as an applicant coming to us prior to building . The fact that it has already been built doesn't matter really . I try to divorce myself of the fact that it is there . In thinking of it that way I don 't see a lot of options based on the existing building and existing structure of the parking lot and the fact that he only has that third of the building . Going out into the parking lot , as Mr. Sopp points out would be a problem for the cars backing up and ® 5 ® pulling out . I think based on that and the fact that there were no complaints from the neighbors I would approve . Anne Everett: I kind of disagree with Stuart, I think precisely because he built it. I can' t believe he didn ' t know he didn 't have to check with Henry on this . It' s a very substantial looking addition . I think precisely for that reason if he would have come to the Board in the beginning then maybe the design would have been changed . I do think it could have gone on the one side of the building . I know it' s unsightly but that' s the price of doing business . It' s very close to the back property line and I don ' t think that the parking space is a problem . I think it could be situated in such a way that parking wouldn 't be a problem . It just seems to be a lot of building for such a little space . Oers Kelemen : I 'm sort of torn on this one too. I don't like the notion that it was built probably with precognition . However, I ' m not sure that we should be in the business of punishing . I guess what we really have to look at is whether it is or is not a detriment to the Town or the neighbors . Not so much the process . It could be argued that you could have built that any number of places . You do have land to make more parking spaces . The number of parking spaces could have been dealt with in such a manner that the cooler could have gone inside . Nick LaMotte : I ' m sympathetic to the comments that Stuart made , and also the comment that Oers made of what we are here for and procedures we are suppose to be following relative to the granting the variance . Looking for the injury to the Town versus the benefit to the applicant . Injury to the Town should not be the same as our personal feelings . At the same time it ' s always unfortunate when someone goes ahead with something like this and comes to us after the fact. However, as Oers pointed out , we are not here to punish . I am very sympathetic to Stuart' s comments and I think we should be looking for whether there is any possible injury to the Town by the granting of this variance. The Board took a five-minute break while Henry Slater retrieved the original application for a building permit. Prior to writing findings the Board members asked Mr. Paul Conklin of 128 North Street, if he had anything he would like to contribute . Paul Conklin : We have a direct view of the building . Where the walk in cooler is now, it blends right in with the building . I don' t see any objection to it. If it were moved around the corner I think it would make the building look funny . If the new structure hadn 't been seen before it was painted it might not have even been noticed . 6 A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The structure in question is a substantial 12x12 foot addition attached to the rear of the building and extending to the rear 3. 5 feet from the rear property line. It is a soundly built attachment and aesthetically pleasing as an addition to the existing structure . The surrounding property owners have expressed no concern with the proposal and the property owner from across the street supports the current site rather ® than the conforming alternative sites on the property . Motion : S. Berg Second: N. LaMotte In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 Be 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 : Placing the structure on the east side of the building may result in the loss of 1 parking space . Current placement is the most aesthetically pleasing on the site , as stated in finding A. Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The requested relief is substantial since it is 11 Y2 feet from the required 15 foot rear set back. Motion : A . Ever Second: S. Berg g In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The Town engineer in a letter dated June 5th, 2001 found no need of further study of the drainage on the property since the drainage was properly routed under the cooler by way of a storm pipe . The design of the addition is in keeping with ® 8 the lines and color schemes of the current structure , and therefore is no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood . Motion : S. Berg Second: A . Everett In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The difficulty was self-created . Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor. 3 Opposed: 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 6NYCRR-617. 5c -7c& 12c Motion : Grant Variance : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( 3 ) Oers Kelemen , Nick LaMotte , and Stuart Berg . NO : ( 1 ) Anne Everett ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) • 9 DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED (2 ) Cutting 7 : 53 PM Chair Hanley opened the hearing of James and Dorothy Cutting of 460 Hunt Hill Rd. , who were requesting a variance to Section 804. 1 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance, and read the application and a letter from the applicants into the file. He then reminded the Board that the Cuttings had also applied and were granted a variance in 1988 after a fire destroyed their former home. The variance allowed the Cuttings to re-build closer than the required 70 ' feet from the center line . Chair Hanley read the findings from the 1988 variance, and then opened the floor for questions and discussion Oers Kelemen : I drove up to the address yesterday to have a look at the property . I saw the hole in the ground and I saw the stone fence. Dorothy Cutting : We've dug the footers. Oers Kelemen : The map indicates that you' re 20 feet from the property line . How far are you from the fence? James Cutting : We are on this side but not too far from it . Oers Kelemen : It seems like the property line really jags off. James Cutting : It' s like a 45-degree angle . Oers Kelemen : Do you maintain that angle? James Cutting : The hedgerow is pretty well straight down through there , our property line is 8 or 10 feet to the other side of that . Oers Kelemen : The far side from you or the near side? James Cutting : Towards the fence. Chair Hanley : Would you like to come up and point that out on the map just so everyone is clear about where the lines are? Mr. Cutting clarified the property lines for the Board members. James Cutting : The property line is 6 or 7 feet toward the house from the stone fence . Oers Kelemen : That does maintain 20 feet? It didn't look like it would . James Cutting : It does . What happened was that the footers were dug extremely wide , and not really where we wanted them . The 14 feet from our house that we were going to bring this is more like 20 or 22 feet . 9 g 9 They made them too wide . Henry Slater: All they have to maintain on the side lot line is 15 feet . Dorothy Cutting : It was 22 or 24 when we measured it. From the end of the new addition at the closest corner. 10 Anne Everett : This is far from a level flat lot . The back has one side that goes down and the side by the driveway is sloped as well . So there really isn 't any other place for an addition . Dorothy Cutting : That' s right . The only other place would be further back away from the road but that would be over the well . There were no further questions and Chair Hanley closed the hearing and explained that the Board would now deliberate on the first application and then come back to deliberate on the second. As always, Chair Hanley explained to the applicants that they were welcome to stay or could call Henry Slater in the morning for the decision FINDINGS A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ,- The structure is on Hunt Hill Rd . , which is an older neighborhood in which the majority of homes within '/z mile of the applicant' s property have similar front set back issues . Since the new construction essentially extends the lines of the house and does not substantially move closer to the road than the existing structure, there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Motion: S. Berg Second: A . Everett 11 In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 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 : It is not feasible to build an addition in any other location on the property because the front of the house is too close to the road , the opposite side of the house has the garage doors and the driveway and is still the same 50 feet from the center line . The back of the house will also interfere with the piping for the well . Motion: A . Everett Second: Stuart Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The request to reduce the set back from 70 feet to 50 feet is numerically substantial . However , because the existing house is as close as 52 feet from the road this addition will not appear visually substantial . 12 Motion : S. Berg Second: A . Everett In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : There will be no undesirable detriment to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the house is surrounded by woods and swamp on the sides and a horse pasture in the rear. Neither side nor the back could easily be developed . None of the neighbors are close, the closest being 1 /3 of a mile away . There will be no litter or waste coming from that room as the room will not have plumbing . The siding will be matched to the existing house. Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The difficulty was self-created . 13 Motion : S. Berg Second: Anne Everett In Favor.' 4 Opposed: 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 6NYCRR-617 . 5 =c -12 & 13 Motion : Grant Variance : A. Everett Second : S . Berg VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Oers Kelemen , Nick LaMotte, Anne Everett , and Stuart Berg , NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED ® 14 a • •