HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-03 TOWN OF DR DEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JULY 3, 2001
AGENDA : ( 1 ) Timothy Foote 0
(2) Chris Andersen
( ) Susan B _ Cornelius
MEM . PRESENT: Chairperson Charles Hanley , Anne Everett, Stuart Berg ,
Oers Kelemen , and Nick Laf Otte ,
ALSO PRESENT . Henry Slater, Timothy Foote , Liam C . B . Murphy (Attorney
for Mr . Foote ) , Chris Andersen , Mark Andersen , Susan
Cornelius , and Philip Winn (Attorney for Ms_ Cornelius) .
LEGAL COUNSEL : Rangy Marcus
i##* r1 ,1kl ,FMle# lefki *#**1 #MfrY4left#!ef!#!e# dr* Ak#*k***g1 **gk *IN *P& dr* A Or* Aor** rfllef!#fkl
( 1 ) TIMOTHY FOOTE
Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the }gearing of Timothy Foote of 967
Peruville Rd ' , Groton , who was asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to
Section 754 . 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance , Chair Hanley read the file into
the record , including a letter dated June 61h , 001 to Henry Slater from Mark Goldfarb ,
and opened the floor for discussion -
7136 PM
I_ . Murphy : I would like to stark by asking for questions or concerns from
the Board .
_ 8erg ; I 've read this and I understand how it happened 13 gears
ago when it was subdivided and the surveyor made a
mistake , basically_ l don ' t understand though , how it came
about now_ Why is it an issue now? Is something
happening?
L . Murphy . The property was recently sold to Mr, Foote by The Smiths
and the issue came up as part of Mr, Foote' s financing of
the property. Apparently for whatever reason when the
1
Lentinis and the Smiths purchased the property the problem
wasn't recognized .
S . Berg : Okay so a new survey found the problem ?
L . Murphy: Exactly.
S . Berg : So that' s how it was found . In thirteen years there was no
notice of this . There was no complaint by a neighbor.
L . Murphy : It went thirteen years without a single complaint. That was
related to us by the Smiths and the Lentinis . Actually the
Lentinis had offered to come tonight, but we decided that
given , particularly the neighbors reaction , that we weren ' t
going to ask them to do that.
0 . Kelemen : On your petition here you indicate that " this minor variance
should be granted . " The first sentence following that says "
. _ . seeks a variance from the Board declaring him not in
violation . . . " In fact I think with the finding that we might come
up with is that he is in violation but it' s okay.
L . Murphy : I ' ll accept that amendment .
A. Everett : The first paragraph ( of the letter) you say , "the apartment
building is one of a cluster of apartment buildings close by
and industrial area around the NYSEG headquarters . " This
area is an RB 1 area . It' s an extremely rural area . There
really isn't anything industrial in the general area . I think the
® NYSEG headquarters is a considerable distance from this .
When you read that sentence you think in terms of an
industrial area but it is really more rural in nature .
L . Murphy : Of course you are absolutely right . What I had wanted to
point out was that this is not the only apartment unit in that
particular locale. Of course this area had been reclassified
as RB 1 after the apartment buildings when up. This area is
a very short drive to the industrial area . I guess what I
wanted to emphasizes was that we are not talking about
pristine farmland . We are talking about something a little
different . I understand your point and certainly agree with
you .
S . Berg : I also would like to understand the mistake a little better.
L . Murphy : I ' ve included both survey maps . Exhibit A is the original
survey map when the property was subdivided . Exhibit B is
the new survey map . On both surveys you ' ll see that there is
a 12 . 5 -foot space between the property line and the
building . So the mistake is that when the surveyor was
sitting down to subdivide the larger parcel he should have
moved the post over and shot the line for the 15 foot
variance which was effective at the time that the original
map was drawn up .
Z
S . Berg : So this whole kne should tiave been moved a few feet, or
the angle should have been different?
L. Murphym Exactly, Or the property line could have been drawn around
the corner of the building , He should have allowed the 1 5-
foot buffer .
_ Berg : Is it possible that you could buy a tiny piece that goes
around to give you that setback?
R . Marcus : The town , like most municipalities has a provision for a lot
line adjustment ,
_ Bergo It might have been at the same cost as this proceeding .
R. Marcus : The problem with doing that is often simply getting the
adjacent owner to agree regardless of the cost_ So I don ' t
know whether the applicant has gone through that excersize
or not .
S . Berg : (To Mr_ Murphy) Is that something that w'as investigated '
L. Murphy: We discussed it and decided that this was probably a wiser
course of action .
. Berg : It sounds like the neighbor is fine with it.
L . Murphy . It, ( buying a piece of property from the neighbor) was
something we couldn 't be sure of-
T. Foote : I think that the current property owner next door to us is
perfectly fine with this . They probably would have more
trouble selling or moving their line . I think that would be
more of a hassle than this . After paying a lawyer and a
surveyor I think it could have been a lot more costly} than
requesting a variance ,
8 : 47 PM Closed hearing portion of Foote Application ,
kft#ft# kflft kk# kkfFkk# kk#fill#fl# }fl# }, #flfl#fl# kfe# } eikfl#flfk#flfk#fl# }fly! }fl#kfk#fkfk#
FINDINGS
A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE
PRODUCED fN 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 requested variance does not result in an undesirable
ch ang e . Indeed the requested variance is no char ge from
the facts as they have existed for the past thirteen years _
The character of the neighborhood will not be changed at
all , Much of the neighborhood consists of several other
apartment buildings, Finally, the requested variance will not
result in any more detriment than neighboring properties
have experienced for the fast thirteen years_
Motion : S. Berg Second: A . Everett
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 -
There are no other feasible approaches to achieve
compliance short of engaging in possibly cast-prohibitive
measures , which would result in no physical change to the
property even if they were to be accepted -
Motion : S, Berg Second: N, LaMotte
In Favor: 4 Opposed: O
4
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE I
SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS -
The relief requested is only 2 . 5 feet " or only 80 inches .
Moreover, this variance does not need even to apply to an
entire wall of the West Building , but only to one tip of it,
namely the northwestern tip_ Thus , whether measured in
terms of the area effected cr the amount by which the
applicant is out of compliance , the requested variance is
Minor_
Motion O. Kelemen Second: A _ Everett
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Do 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 requested variance has no physical or environmental
impact . There is no building contemplated under this
request , rather, it asks on [ that the Board provide a
variance recognizing the facts that have existed since
before 1988 . Thus , the requested variance would have no
impact on the neighborhood but would , instead , recognize
the state of facts that have existed for over thirteen years_
Motion : S. Berg Second: 0. l elemen
In Favor. 4 Opposed: 0
E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS .
Mr_ Foote did not create this problem ; rather the problem is
a result of errors made in the sub-division of Mr, Marquis'
property in 1988 .
Motion: A _ Everett Second: S, Berg
In Favor, 4 Opposed: 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT ] NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR
SECTION 617a &c-. 1 ( set back
Motion : Grant Variance ; A. Everett
Second : _ Berg
VOTE : YES ; { 4 ) Anne Everett , Oers I elemen , Nick LaMotte , and
Stuart Berg .
N0 : ( 0 )
ABSTAINED : { 0 }
DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED
10 6
( ) CHRIS ANDERSEN
Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of Chris Andersen of 4
Sherbor Drive , Freeville , who was asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to
Section 700 . 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance _ Chair Hanley read the file into
the record and opened the floor for discussion .
H _ Slater: I have to point out an error that the applicant pointed out to
me _ This office does all the plotting by computer to
determine who gets notified of a hearing . Mr, Reeser the
adjacent neighbor is not on that list_ For the life of me I can ' t
figure out why_ He is the one who would be directly effected
if anyone will .
S . Bergo So he has not been notified?
H , Slater: He has not been notified other than Mr, Andersen ' s
conversations with him which brought it to his attention .
N _ La The Town Board recently went through a similar situation
didn 't they Henry's In which all the parties decided to hear
the subject?
H , Slaterm True . I would like to point. out that it's not the applicant' s
fault _ It is the Town of Drden ' s fault , particularly our
department .
D . Hanley '. ( To Mr, Andersen So you have spoken to Mr_ Reese?
D , Andersen , We both have , this is my Dad , Mark Andersen .
N _ LaMotte ; Is there a time factor involved in your application sir? Is this
a rush type thing ?
_ Andersen : Yes_
H _ Slater; They originally had a building permit and they were going to
build in conformance by some clever construction and then
they realized it was futile so they came back and applied for
a variance .
S _ Berg : A decision could be made contingent upon an acceptable
response from Mr, Freese?
A_ Everett , you' ve purchased the land from Mr, Freese , Chris?
C . Andersen '. No , we purchased the land from the estate of Bob Bauer ,
R . Marcus, Henry, correct me if I ' m wrong but the sending of the notices
to the listed parties is your usual routine . It' s not a part of
the statute , I don't find it in the rules of procedure . Do you
know of it appearing somewhere else?
H _ Slater, No,
R , Marcus : I know that you do it and have been doing it all along , but as
far as legal notice , the publication is what is required .
H _ Slater: In 267 B ?
R. Marcus : 267 A.
7
, Hanleym We don ' t have a persistent practice problem?
R. Marcusm Well that isn' t what I am saying . It may be curable as Stuart
suggested , the possibility of proceeding as you wish to hear
it and maybe even go so far as to make a decision
contingent upon receiving confirmation that the neighbor is
aware of it and has no objections _ This is distinct from the
third matter that is on your agenda tonight, where there is a
failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements that
you don 't have any way to change. To be real specific, what
Henry was just referring to was the requirement of the state
statute to give public notice by publication in the paper of
general circulation at least five days prior to the day of the
hearing _ There is nothing in the state statute that requires
you to send notices to any particular parties _ I don't find
anything in your rules of procedure, which basically parrots
the States . There is nothing in here that says Henry has to
send notices to adjoining property owners . The only other
place I could look is in your Zoning Ordinance ,
O I element The only problem I have , Randy , with your solution of
passing some kind of resolution based on a favorable letter,
is , who decides whether it is favorable or not?
R . Marcus . The Board .
0 I, elemen , At our subsequent meeting? That gets a little messy ,
I . Marcus ; I don 't disagree_ I am not suggesting that you do one or the
other_
N _ LaMotte : Randy has already eluded to the third request that we have
here tonight, and all though it is not before us I am
unequivocally opposed to the procedure that Stuart offered
as a possibility . I understand there is an urgency there . My
feeling is that we should schedule a special meeting as
soon as possible to accommodate Mr. Winn and his client
and all parties concerned and perhaps handle the Andersen
hearing at the same time . How urgent is this Mr. Winn?
P . Winno We expected to close last week but likewise we have a
surveying discrepancy that was revealed last Wednesday ,
K LaMotte : So the deal is not going to fall through it you don 't get it
tonight "
C . Hanley: Let' s not get too far ahead of ourselves , let' s deal with the
second one first.
R _ Marcus : Just to confirm , your Zoning Ordinance parrots the State
statute requiring the five days advance notice published in
the paper in general circulation . I ' m not trying to say that
disagree with the fact that it is your custom and practice to
g
notify adjoining owners_ Henry I don't know how you make
1 up that list_ I assume you look at the tax map ,
H , Slater: We use to physically do it , take a look at the parcel and
figure out any parcel that was within 500 feet of the affected
parcel and notify them . Now we just tell the computer to do
that.
C . Hanley ; Anne has something in Section 1902 ,
A_ Everett . On page 12 , Fundy , # , Section 1902 , " Mail notices to the
parties involved , "
R . Marcus ; (Maybe that is the basis of why Henry sends notices to the
adjoining owners _ gut that doesn ' t say who you are mailing
notices too specifically , There is no definition anywhere of
' parties involved ' .
, Hanleyq This is where I wondered if past practice comes in _
Obviously we have accepted that definition as neighbors .
R _ Marcus: I don ' t think it is a good idea to proceed without attending to
the same procedure that you have attended to , vether it is
built specifical I into the statue or not , I know that that has
been done in every instance in every variance for many
gears_ So I am not suggesting that you diverge from that
practice, I ' m just saying that divergence from that practice is
a different situation than divergence from the State statute .
0 _ element Since these problems seem to be somewhat similar, could
e agree to have a meeting in a week or perhaps two so
that they could bath meet their commitments and not prolong
the agony? Then we wouldn 't be setting new rules for our
selves .
, Hanley '. I know this is out of procedure , but how does the Board feel
about that's
S . Berg : If it is a week from tonight I don't have a problem with that ,
H . Slater: We couldn ' t possibly make the five days because tomorrow
is a holiday. Unless I did it before I went home and faxed it
in and asked them to plant it on Thursday and hope they do
it on Thursday this time . If I faxed it in tonight and it gat
printed on Thursday, typically I have to have it in by four
o 'clock two days before , You could meet at six o'clock on
Wednesday, before the Town Board .
C . Hanley- That's true , nothing sags it has to be 7130 ,
N _ LaMotte : We should go through some formality of addressing the third
request tonight shouldn ' t e ?
R , Marcus , Yes , The real formality is scheduling the separate meeting .
C . Hanley , Is everyone okay with Wednesday at 6 o ' clock?
9
The Board as well as the applicant's were Jrn agreement with are additional meeting to be
held on Wednesday, July 19 {" at 6 o 'clock PM. Chair Manley closed the hearing section
of the Andersen Application and opened the hearing of Susan Cornelius,
i�
( 3 ) SUSAN CORNELIUS
Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of Susan Gornelius, the
property at 2215 Dryden Rd _ , Dryden , who was asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a variance to Section 905. (a) of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Chair Hanley
reed the file into the record and opened the floor for discussion .
8 ' 04 PM Opened hearing of Susan Cornelius
Thera was a brief discussion abort the urgency of the Cornelius application , The Board
members asked for}ustification of an additional meeting fr; July.
P . Winne The closing was orig1naIIy scheduled for February . Because
of various things it has been dragged out. A new survey
revealed a problem with the lot line .
C _ Hanley ; It was going to close in February?
Pr inn., Yes_
C . Hanley: There was no survey done until when'
P . Winn . We did not expect a survey to be needed . The buyer had
originally said they would go on the old survey , and then
said because the survey was scaled rather than sho ing a
dimension ' why don 't we have a new survey prepared ?'
Rather than going back to that surveyor we agreed to go to
Mr . Reagan who is doing the site plan work for the
prospective purchaser. We are convinced that Mr. Reagan
has done it right and we are in violation of the sideline
requirement .
C . Hanley ; There IS a mortgage involved?
P . Winn ; There is a mortgage that Bruce Balser , who is going to build ,
has obtained from Cortland Savings Bank .
D _ Hanley , When was that mortgage obtained'
S . Cornelius '. It was approved in February ,
_ Berg . And that is the one that is expiring '
P , Winne f think everything is up for grabs with interest rates going
dawn . I don ' t think they will charge any more to renew that.
His original mortgage commitment letter is April 1 "',
_ Hanley-, And they didn 't require a survey at that time'
P . Winn ; What they require for closing is really up to the bank
attorney , Often when there is new construction involved you
get a survey completed when all the improvements are
there . If the first surveyor had shown 15 feet as a side nine
we would not have had a survey at this time and then
11
probably Mr. Baker would be in to apply for a variance
� rather than} Ms. Cornelius .
. Hanley : Does anyone have any questions ? Again we are just looking
for the reason for the special circumstances here , We really
don 't want to get into the entire fire . Does anyone have any
questions about the urgency involved?
P . Winn : The commitment letter states that "This commitment
Ietter. . , may at our option ( Cortland Savings Bank) be
canceled without notice if the loan is not closed within 60
days from the date of this correspondence , " We are beyond
that already so we don't want to push it .
_ Hanley: And for purposes of our decislon later on , is July 11 `�' at 6
o' clock okay?
P _ Winn . We will make sure it is ,
8: 15 PM Chair Hanley closed the hearing section of the Cornelius
application and returned to the finding portion of the Foote
application,
8 : 35 PM After completing the findings far the Foote application the
Board returned to the Andersen and Comelius Applications
and opened the deliberative sections of both .
C . Hanley: The sense of the Board seems to be that we come into
session Wednesday July 111h at 6 o ' clock to hear the
Andersen application and the Cornelius application at ; 1 5
PM , That public notification take place immediately with
proper notification to all the neighbors .
B . Berg '. I make a motion that vve take the action as described .
A , Everett : Second .
All members were in favor.
G . Hanley : Does anyone have any amendments to the June 5th minutes
that have not already been given to Laura by Randy?
( None ) , Then do I hear a motion to accept the minutes as
amended "?
A, Everett: So moved -
S .
Berg : Second .
Potion to adjourn by S_ Berg. Second by A . Everett,
12