Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-04 Eli TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OO o December 4, 2001 AGENDA: ( 1 ) Bernard Cornelius - Cornelius Home Builders MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Anne Everett , and Oers Kelemen . ALSO PRESENT : Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary Laura Carpenter, and Applicant Bernard Comelius. LEGAL COUNSEL: Attorney Randy Marcus ( 1 ) BERNARD CORNELIUS ® 7 : 32 PM Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of Bernard Cornelius - Cornelius Home Builders , 399 Main Street , Freeville . Mr. Cornelius was asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to Section 703 . 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance. The variance would apply to the property located at 200 Harford-Dryden Road which was constructed in error closer than the required 25 ' from the rear property line . Chair Hanley read the application into the file as well as a letter dated 11 -27 -01 from TG Miller, and a letter dated 11 -28-01 from the Tompkins County Department of Planning . 7 : 38 PM Chair Hanley opened the floor to Mr. Cornelius . B . Cornelius : I am in complete embarrassment about this . I have built many houses and I can tell you it will never happen again because before I start another new house the lot will be surveyed and I ' m going to know where the stakes are . 1 thought it was pretty black and white where the stakes were , but next time I ' m going to know. The upper ( stake) was visible no problem . It' s all stone hedge down through there . isIt' s an honest mistake , but it' s my fault because I didn ' t have t it surveyed . Things do change or get hidden or covered up and I ' m really upset over this . O. Kelemen : Bernie , how far apart are those two stakes? B. Cornelius : 8' or 10 ' . O. Kelemen : So the one you measured to was 8' or 10' removed from Mere the actual line was . S. Berg : There was a mistake in rods? B. Cornelius : There are 2 rods there . S . Berg : So it was a marker from a different property line? B . Cornelius : Yes . S. Berg : So that' s the difference , because of the 2 rods . H . Slater: To the north there is only 1 stake so that's why only part of the house is out of conformance. S . Berg : The house is at an angle . H . Slater: The line is at an angle also . C. Hanley : How was it found ? H . Slater: Actually Mr. Cornelius had a final survey for the sale and he brought it to our attention . R . Marcus : The record should note that according to the survey the corner of the house is 17 . 9'from the rear lot line . So as opposed to the indication of it being a 2' discrepancy it's just ® over a 7 'descrepancy. ( To Henry Slater) Under the Towns zoning law does the deck require a variance also? Is it considered a structure, which would be required to be outside of the setback area ? H . Slater: I believe it reads . . . anything attached to the ground or attached to a structure that' s attached to the ground . . . " S . Berg : The deck looks more out of variance than the house. R. Marcus : Yes . I just want to be sure that you are going to consider that as part of it. (To Mr. Cornelius ) You mentioned that there is a slope back there. Is that sloping up or down ? B. Cornelius : Up . Behind the house . R. Marcus : And how far off would you say the next house is going in that direction? B . Cornelius : 150' maybe . H . Slater: It's a substantial distance because as Bridle Lane comes up it sweeps around and up the hill and the lots that face Rt. 38 come down like this and as Mr. Cornelius pointed out there is some terrain that is not desirable back there so people have adjusted when they built their houses . There is no other possible development site between this house and the one behind it and I would say that is probably a reasonable ® estimate . 2 R . Marcus: And all that land between this property line and that next house is all in the same ownership? H . Slater: These are the last 2 development lots left in the subdivision on this end . The one that he is developing on Bridle Lane and this one . S . Berg : One feasible solution would be to purchase enough property to make it meet the requirement. R . Marcus : that's conceptually an option . A. Everett : So the deck does need to be included in the variance too? H . Slater: It ' s part of the structure . Eeverett : How large is the deck Bernie? B . Cornelius : Maybe 10 X 12 , A. Everett: What is the foundation of it? B . Cornelius : Footers , S . Berg : Is this drawing proportionate and accurate? H . Slater: Yes . S . Berg : So it looks like it' s going 12 '/2 or 13 feet into the 25-foot setback. A . Everett: What does the deck go into? B . Cornelius : Into the kitchen . A. Everett: The deck is one story high ? B . Cornelius: Yes . ® A . Everett : Does it have sides? B . Cornelius : Yes. S . Berg : Railings? B . Cornelius : Yes . R , Marcus : So given the change in elevation between this house and the next house up that you mentioned is about 150' away could someone at the next house actually even see this? B . Cornelius : When the leaves are on , no . The next house is probably 40' or 50' higher. C . Hanley : So we have an idea of how far in the deck is? S . Berg : It looks like 13' out of 25 . A. Everett: Can we just add the deck to the variance request or do we have to go through another whole procedure ? H . Slater: I would consider the deck or mention the deck. R . Marcus: It just says " . . . a single family home structure built in error closer than 251 . . . " So I think you can consider it all together. Also at the far end of the house there is a little porch or entrance . B . Cornelius : That' s another little deck off the bedroom . That' s only like 6X8 . R . Marcus : That' s also sitting on ground level ? B . Cornelius : Well it' s on the same level as the other deck . S . Berg : Did you speak with the neighbor concerning the variance? B . Cornelius : No I have not. H . Slater: We notified the neighbor in writing . A. Everett : Is the septic in front of that house? B . Cornelius: Yes . A. Everett : And it's a little over an acre? H . Slater: Yes . A. Everett : We haven't seen Cornelius Builders for a variance request have we? H . Slater: I don't believe they have ever been before the Board . 7 : 50 PM : Chair Hanley closed the hearing and the Board began deliberations . 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 nearest house is approximately 150' away from this structure and on the far side of the northwest boundary . The topography and vegetation on the site minimizes the visual impact of the structure as viewed from the adjacent properties . Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg 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 : • 4 Because the house is completed relocation is not feasible . Purchasing a small portion of the adjacent property would reduce the size of that lot which is already close to the Tompkins County Department of Health minimum lot size . 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 : As per the survey map of 10- 19-01 hereafter referred to as exhibit # 1 the requested relief is up to 15' for the northwest deck and 7 . 1 ' for the northwest corner of the house. Although the requested relief is substantial the actual encroachment of the buildings footprint on the setback zone is only a portion of two ground level decks and the northwest corner of the building . Motion: 0. Kelemen Second: S. Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0 o. 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: 5 The are no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as noted in A. 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 : Although self-created the situation was unique because of the location of multiple survey pins which misled both the builder and the Towns representative. Motion : A . Everett Second: S. Berg In Favor.' 4 Opposed: 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617. 5 (c ) - 12 Motion : Oers Kelemen - Grant request Second : Stuart Berg VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Anne Everett , Chuck Hanley, Oers Kelemen , and Stuart Berg . NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED 6