HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-08 4
TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
January 8, 00
AGENDA : { 1 ) Lee and Gloria Knuppenburg
( 2) David Peak
( ) David and Mary Ann Meldrum
( 4 ) Peter Schug � Cayuga Press
EMI . P'F E ENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Walter Matyjas ,
and Oers elemen _
ALSO PRESENT" : Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary Laura
Huff, J . Crispell , Applicant' s Lee and Gloria Knuppenburg ,
David Peak, Doug Flanagan , David and Mary Ann Meldrum ,
and Pater Schug .
LEGAL. COUNSEL . Attorney Randy Marcus
( 1 ) KNUPPENBURG
7 : 0 PM Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of Lee and
Gloria Knuppenburg of 2335 Dryden Road who were .
requesting relief of Dryden Town Sign Ordinance Article 16
Section 1 02 , -c which limits the size of a residential home
sign to two (2 ) square feet . Chair Hartley read the fife into
the record including a letter dated 01 m04m02 from the
Tompkins Counter Department of Planning and a letter dated
12- 6 -61 from T . , Miller Engineer`& Both letters are
available on file . Chair Hanley opened the fiaor for
discussion .
L_ Knuppenburg . The problem is that ( the location of the sign will be) high up
an a bank-
i
A
S . Berg : What type of sign will this be? Will it be illuminated ?
L . Knuppenburg : It will be stationary and unlit .
S . Berg : Is it a business ? . Is that what it' s for?
L . Knuppenburg : Yes . It would be for a dog grooming business . That' s why I
referred to the other sign ( similar to the " Groom Room" sign )
which is right on Rt . 13 .
S . Berg : The other sign you are comparing it to is similar? It ' s 4
square feet?
L . Knuppenburg : Actually that sign is bigger than 4 square feet.
S . Berg : To Henry Slater. The maximum allowed is 2 square feet?
H . Slater: Every house is eligible for one residential square foot . Then
it says for each home occupation you ' re allowed to add an
additional square foot. Interestingly , the sign that Mr .
Knuppenburg refers to , being in that district requires special
use permit consideration and it was portrayed as a service
business under those circumstances and at that time the
ordinance accommodated the sign in the condition it is.
Additionally if you have a bed and breakfast business you 'd
be allowed to have an even larger sign in a residential
neighborhood or setting . So , he is sort of caught in a catch
22 in this particular case .
0 . Kelemen : Henry , you say that at one time it would have met the
criteria . What has happened that it does not now.
H . Slater: It goes back enough that I don ' t recall the specifics of it but
do recall that (the "Groom Room " sign) qualified but I can 't
elaborate without research .
0 . Kelemen : So you' re saying it was long ago?
H . Slater: Yes , 1986- 1987 .
0 , Kelemen : So before this place of business it was intended as a service
industry .
H . Slater: If I follow what you ' re saying then yes .
0 . Kelemen : Then I don 't think it really matters . Mr. Knuppenburg , did you
go into this with your eyes open , knowing that the sign
requirement was 1 X2 ?
G . Knuppenburg : We didn 't really check into the size of the sign . There were
so many signs up and down the road it didn 't seem to be a
problem until we went to have it built and then realized that
we were limited .
0 . Kelemen : How high off the ground do you intend this sign to be?
L . Knuppenburg : The maximum would be five foot .
0 . Kelemen : The top would be five foot .
S . Berg : So really it ends up being 8 times the allowed square
footage right ? Two square feet are allowed and it would be
16 [ square feet] .
2
H . Slater: 1 & Right ; 4X4
G . Knuppenburg : If you had something ' s smaller they are not going to be able
to see it and read the letters without slowing down .
S . Berg : Is this on the south side?
H . Slater: South side ; yes .
0 . Kelemen : could you better describe where it is ? What is it adjacent to?
G . Knuppenburg : You go up out of Dryden on Rt . 13 , there is a sign on the
right hand side that says Dryden Sertoma Club, it' s a
highway sign , our driveway is right across from that sign .
H . Slater: It' s just beyond Spring House road .
C . Hanley : Anyone here that came to speak to this variance? If you' d
just give your name and address for the record .
J . Crispell : I think they answered a lot of my questions. I ' m wondering
what color it' s going to be and what it' s going to say .
G . Knuppenburg : I raise dogs and the name of the kennel is ° Pumpkin Patch "
so it' s going to be " Pumpkin Patch Pet Grooming , and that' s
about all it' s going to say and maybe a phone number if it
fits .
C . Hanley : Will this be lit?
L . Knuppenburg : No .
G . Knuppenburg : It' s going to be shaped like a pumpkin .
C . Hanley . The sign itself will be shaped like a pumpkin ?
G . Knuppenburg : Yes. So it' s actually going to be a little less than the 4X4 .
S . Berg : The 5 foot post will be from the ground and the sign will not
extend above the top of the post?
L. Knuppenburg : Right . The very maximum it would be total , is 5 foot to the
top of the sign .
G . Knuppenburg : We wanted to get the sign down low enough and it's 4 feet
tall so at one side it' s going to be out of the ground a little .
L . Knuppenburg : Because of the bank.
R . Marcus : Is the sign proposed to be 2-faced ?
L. Knuppenburg : Yes .
R . Marcus : Identical on either side ?
L. Knuppenburg : Yes .
S . Berg : Is that how it' s measured ? The 2 square feet is 2 square feet
on each side for the Zoning Law?
H . Slater: We get back to the old 1 foot thickness situation again . I
can 't imagine it being anywhere near a foot thick.
S . Berg : No because you ' re going to have a 4x4 between the two
sides so it will be 3 % " between . . .
H . Slater: Plus the depth of the material on either side .
L . Knuppenburg : Which will probably be '/x tiplywood .
S . Berg : So it will be well under a foot. You haven 't had these signs
made yet have you ?
3
® L . Knuppenburg : No.
7 : 50 PM : There was no further discussion . Chair Hanley closed the
hearing of Lee and Gloria Knuppenburg _
( 1 ) KNUPPENBURG
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 VARIANCELE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Adjoining neighbors were present and no objections were
expressed. The area is in an RD zone and if the applicant
were not a resident of the property they would be allowed to
erect a sign up to 40 square foot. Therefore the Board finds
that no 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.
Motion : S. Berg Second: W. Mafyjas
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 :
The 45 mph speed lirnit and the 50 foot setback required by
the width of the State highway all necessitate a larger sign
in order to be k gible by a passing vehicle . Therefore the
Board finds this variance to be the most feasible method for
the applicant to pursue .
Motion: S, Berg Second: W Matyjas
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
C. I IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUE TED AREA VARIANC E I
SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS -
The requested relief is substantial for residential use but
less than 40 square feet allowed by a business in this RD
zone ,
Motion ; S. Berg Second: Q , Kefemen
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
n _ IN CONS ] DERIN WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN
ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OFF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN THE NEI HBORH QD OR DISTRICT THE ZONIN BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
The proposed sign W11 not be illuminated _ Additionally ,
There were no neighborhood objections ( see finding ) .
Therefore the Board finds that there will be no adverse
effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood of district .
Motion : 0. Keierrren Second: W Matyjas
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED T HE ZONIN G BOARD Q,F AP P EALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS .-
The difficulty is self-created .
Motion S. Berg Second: W Matyjas
In Favor- 4 Opposed: 0
THIS VALIANCE IS AS EXEMPT } NOWE EMPT A TION UNDER FOR
ETION 617. E c - 14
Motion . Stuart Berg - Grant request with the condition that
the sign be no larger than would fit within a 3 foot diameter
circle .
Second ; Walter Matyjas
VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Chuck Hanley , Oers } elemen , Walter Matyjas
and Stuart Berg .
NO : ( 0 )
ABSTAINED : { 0 }
DECISION ;
6
-A 4*lo1l * A0r*1 **4k lelk#* it*#YIMle�4le941e* �e4e #t**1iMleY4leri'!a#fk * lrfk,kf**#il�ri1k *** 1,****
( ) PEAK
7 . 46 PM Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing cf David
Peak of 463 Livermore Rd , who was requesting relief of
Article 7 Section 703 . 2 , side yard setback . The purpose cf
this request is to extend a pre-existing non-conforming
detached private garage structure , The proposed extension
would be 0 ' 20 ' and would maintain the lines of the
existing structure . Chair HaM6y read the file into the record
including a letter dated 0 1 m04mO2 from The Tompkins County
Department Of Planning and a letter dated 01 0&02 from T .
, Miller Engineers , Both letters are available on file . Chair
Hanley opened the floor for discussion ,
D_ Peak : The original' property line was drawn adjacent to the
building . The further bads the building goes the farther away
from the property it goes .
C . Hanley-, Why don ' t you come up and show us what you mean .
D . Peak: The property line runs this way and the building ' s aren ' t
square on the property line _ The building actually sits more
square with the read . So from the corner to there will be 4 ' 3"
but it literally goes in from the property lime .
H . Slater , if you follow this line and that line it looks Nke it does begin
to encroach more as it goes back , but I would say it is very
difficult to tell mostly because this was sketched on here
when the survey was done by the surveyor, right? So who
knows .
D . Peak: If you look at the line straight down standing on Livermore
road , pin to pIn the building does angle to the right which is
farther away from the property line in the tuck,
S . Berg : But it' s not shown that way on this map .
H . Slater'. The surveyor doesn 't provide dimensions from the edge of
the building to the property line so the question is whether
he drew it that way intentionally .
Or Kelement Which of the 2 pins, are the operative pins ?
D , Peak : The dark fines are what I own ,
0 . Kelernen ; okay , that's the one we are tallying about .
D _ Peak , Yes . According to my survey, there is no quick claim there
because he owns everything he passible could own _ But
they wrote that on the deed as a quick claim that if he didn 't
have enough property he could claim some cf that ,
_ Hanley: As I understand your testimony is that this is not really an
accurate representation of the building .
7
® D . Peak: Right , it does angle in toward the property a little bit .
H . Slater: It appears to me that Mr. Peak is looking at the scale in the
way that the surveyor drew the existing garage on the map . I
wouldn 't want to hazard which is right and which is wrong .
W. Matyjas : There is a dimension here 4. 3 with an arrow indicating
where it was measured from is that from the surveyor?
D . Peak: Yes . From the corner of the existing garage . I can look
straight by the pins and I could see it angling in a little.
0 . Kelemen : So the new garage will be attached to this one .
D . Peak: Yes .
W. Matyjas : So we know it starts at 4 . 3 feet but we don 't know where it
ends , It' s definitely not parallel .
D . Peak : I would testify that I would gain at least a foot. But I wouldn 't
swear it I 'm just looking at the pin line down through
because there is a hedgerow there .
0 . Kelemen : That would all be true if that disputed property was in fact
yours .
D . Peak : I have paperwork that says that the surveyor would testify
that it is .
S . Berg : Has that been submitted?
D . Peak: No.
R . Marcus : What the survey is telling is that he acquired everything
within the dark lines . The lighter line that runs to the
northerly edge of the hedgerow is on there because the
surveyor came across a notation in the deed , ( to the guy
who owns the property to the south ) . Somewhere along the
way there was a question as to how far north Mr. Peak' s
property went so that the person who conveyed Flanagan ' s
property to him quick claimed that triangular section north of
the dark line . It doesn 't mean Mr. Peak doesn 't own it . It
means that there is something in the title records indicating
that Mr. Flanagan has some rites to it . If there were a
dispute it is more than likely that Mr. Peak would be
determined to be the owner of that property but the surveyor
is obligated , having come across that information , to show it
on the map .
0 . Kelemen : Mr. Flanagan has not made a negative comment?
C . Hanley : No negative comments of any kind in the file .
D . Peak: The reason that was on there according to what
understand is that when I acquired this property the last
survey on it was done with bars and boards or something ,
however they measured it in the 50' s . That was the original
deed that I got. That ' s why there might be a question on it.
Hanley , Anyone have questions for Mr. Peals before we get to the
audience"
0 . I elemen : You couldn' t possibly fit the new garage between the house
and the existing garage?
D - Peak : ( Between the house and garage ) is my only access down to
the back of the property for the septic tank to empty it and
everything , between the house anid the garage .
0 . Kelemen: You couldn't get around behind it?
D . Peak: No , Not on either sFde .
R , Marcus : Is the existing garage wider than 20 feet ?
D - Peak: No , it' s exactly 20 feet .
W. Matyjasl. W li the roof lines match as well ?
D , Peak , The roof is going to be lower than the existing garage, but
the wall will match up , The garage that is there is 20 X 24
feet-
. Berg , Will there be an access on any of these sides ?
D - Peak: The 2 dark doors are going to be sliding doors .
S . Berg : Like barn doors"
D - Peak ; Exactly , The reason for this bui [ding is for my antique autos
that I like to beep under cover , night now it' s costing me
$ 150 . 00 a month for storage . For that I can afford to build a
garage .
S . Berge How will you get them into this part of the garage's
D - Pear: I can get right through there . Between the house and the
garage I ' ve got 14 feet , I can drive right down there and
back right in .
0 - Kelemen-I Will there be plumbing ?
D . PeaK No utilities- Just cold storage - I don't need heat or anything .
O . Kelemen : You mentioned something about measurements being taken
ire the 50 ' s . You ' ve owned this property for less than 5 years
right ?
R Peak ' Yes- The actual deed I got when I bought the property , was
from a survey done in the early 50 ' 3 .
0 . Kelemen : They just carried over the old description ?
D, PeakE I had to have one cone when I bought the property but the
last one prior to that was in the 50 ' s .
0 , Kelemen : Didn ' t the bank want something more current?
D - Peaki This was a land contract,
C . Haniley_ Everyone okay so far?
D . Flanagarim I ' m the neighbor four fleet from this proposed garage - 1
haven't seen these playas that you' re looking at - C still don ' t
really know what you' re talking about doing - I take it you ' re
just going 10 feet back ?
D - Peak : 20 feet ,
o 9
® D . Flanagan : 20 feet back .
Mr. Peak pointed out to Mr. Flanagan the proposed changes
to be made.
D . Flanagan : I guess my biggest concern was that I assumed he would
want to keep the floor of that garage level all the way back
so I assumed he would be filling . But you ' re not.
D . Peak: It's separate . There is four foot difference in the ground
level .
D . Flanagan : No drainage issues? No trees that need to be cut down .
D _ Peak : None .
S . Berg : To Mr. Flanagan. How close is your closest structure to
this ?
D . Flanagan : Not very close.
Mr. Flanagan approached the bench and pointed out the
location of his nearest structure for the board.
D . Flanagan : I don' t particularly have a problem with it as long as it stays
on his side .
8 : 02 PM : Chair Hanley closed the hearing of David Peak .
( 2 ) PEAK
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 property owner was present and reviewed
applicant' s plans and expressed no concerns . The proposed
addition will not be visible to any other neighbors . The
proposed addition is an extension to a pre-existing non-
conforming building . Therefore the Board finds that no
® lU
i
® undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties will be
created .
Motion : S. Berg Second: O_ Kelemen
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 :
The location and maintenance of the septic system as well
as reasonable access to the storage makes this the only
feasible location for the additional storage structure .
Motion : S. Berg Second: W Matyjas
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
® C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Although the relief requested is substantial it is no more
substantial than the pre-existing non-conforming structure .
Motion : S. Berg Second: 0. Kelemen
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 proposed location will not need any excavation or
grading , nor will there be any loss to the existing vegetative
screening . Therefor the Board finds that there will be no
adverse effect of impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district .
Motion : S. Berg Second: W. Matyjas
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 . However, due to the facts
stated in A , B and C above , the Board finds no reasonable
alternative .
Motion: S. Berg Second: W. Matyjas
In Favor 4 Opposed: 0
•
THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR
SECTION 617 . 5( 0) 12
Motion : Stuart Berg - Grant request - with the requirement
that the Zoning Officer enforces the minimum 4 foot setback .
Second : Oers Kelemen
VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Chuck Hanley, Oers Kelemen , Walter Matyjas ,
and Stuart Berg .
NO : ( 0 )
ABSTAINED : ( 0 )
DECISION :
• 12
® *!***RR** R** *****R**RR*!** !*RR*RRlRR******RR*R!R* *!***R*RR*!** ** *RRR!*!R******RRRRR*RRR*!** !* *R*RR*!**
( 3 ) MELDRUM
8 : 02 PM Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of David
and Mary Ann Meldrum of 48 Lower Creek Road , who were
requesting relief of Article 7 Section 754. 2 rear yard
setback . The purpose of this request is to leave in place a
portable storage shed closer than 25' from the rear property
line . Chair Hanley read the file into the record including a
letter dated 01 -08 -02 from David and Linda Baylor, a letter
dated 01 =04-02 from The Tompkins County Department Of
Planning , and a letter dated 01 -08 -02 from T. G . Miller
Engineers . All aforementioned letters are available on file .
Chair Hanley opened the floor for discussion .
D . Meldrum : I brought some pictures of the property so you can see what
I am talking about.
Mr. Meldrum presented the pictures to the board for review
and clarification .
S . Berg : Mr. Lipinski how close is this to any structures you have?
S . Lipinski : Our home is probably 150 feet I would guess from that shed .
1 met with David yesterday when this came to us . I ' m not
really here to speak for it or against it. We would like to see
if we could have a postponement. The nature of this is that
we are really the only two people affected by this . While it' s
not in our backyard it certainly is visual from out backyard .
We don' t necessarily want them to move it it' s just that it
came in at a time when all the leaves are off the trees and
the bushes and everything are down . What we would like to
do is get some king of a postponement here so we can take
this into June or July and physically see how this effects
how we both live . Possibly just some landscaping around
this will more than satisfy our position in this . We don 't want
to say that we want them to move this nor do we want to say
that we want to give up whatever right we might have to say
we would like them to move it. We don 't know how it' s really
going to effect us . So we would like a postponement through
the summer perhaps or at least enough time for bushes to
grow back in and trees to come in .
R . Marcus : This makes a lot of sense .
I think the label under which you can put this is ° the need for
more information" which has been the basis for adjourning
hearings in the past . The request has to come from the
applicant and it should be in. writing .
S . Berg : It seems to me that this is when the shed would be most
visible . So if this is the worst case it seems to me that
looking at it now from your property you could say " it would
really be much better if we had some evergreens there . "
S . Lipinski : I ' m not sure about you but I don' t spend any time in my
backyard in the winter. In the summer we make use of the
rest of our land . Where it is now from our house we don 't
see it . In the summer we are in the yard more .
O . Kelemen : Henry is this 6 feet or 8 feet? I ' ve sort of heard both .
H . Slater: 8 feet .
O . Kelemen : 25 feet to 8 feet seems like a big misunderstanding or
mistake .
D . Meldrum : That was my fault. When I got looking at it I was more
concerned about where my house was going to set and
keeping that within the property where it' s suppose to be .
When I looked at the shed I just got excited and thought that
shed would look beautiful there . I just went ahead and the
developer said it would be a perfect place for the shed and
we put it up . The reason it was put there was because it was
the most convenient spot for me because it was close to my
house and it looked good there .
C . Hanley : Well I guess the ball is in the applicants court . Is there
anyone on the Board opposed to postponing this?
There were no objections.
D . Meldrum : I would like to ask for a postponement until August 2002 on
the basis of a need for more information .
8 : 20 PM : Chair Hanley adjourned the hearing of David and Mary Ann
Meldrum .
® 14
A*RR*R *** ***R ****** *** **R ** ******R*RRRR*******RRRRR* d** *R* ** ******R *R* R**********RRRR ***** *******R****
( 4) CAYUGA PRESS
8 : 25 PM : Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of Peter
Schug - President of Cayuga Press , 1771 and 1779
Hanshaw Road , Ithaca - who was requesting variance
authority to create a nonconforming MA Zoning District lot
with about 6/101h, S of an acre where one ( 1 ) acre is required .
Relief of Article 12 Section 1206 . 5 is requested . Chair
Hanley read the file into the record including the following
letters : dated 01 -04-02 from The Tompkins County
Department Of Planning , and a letter dated 01 -08-02 from T .
G . Miller Engineers . Both letters are available on file . Chair
Hanley opened the floor for discussion .
C . Hanley: I received a call from Lea Creasey stating that she wanted
the Board to be aware that there was a possibility of a
tertiary business going into this area .
R . Marcus : I have to put on the record that Cayuga Press is a client of
out firm . I personally have not done any work for them . They
have been represented by my partner. Given the ethical
rules I need to disclose that to you and give both the Board
and the Applicant the opportunity to request that I not
participate in this hearing if either of you feel there would be
a conflict of interest in regard to the application .
There were no objections to Attorney Marcus representing
the Board in this hearing.
P . Schug : What we are doing is decreasing the back line of the lot.
The front and the side are going to remain the same , as they
were prior to us putting the two lots together a few years
back. So we aren 't really changing the character of the
neighborhood at all . The people at ICS Press are looking to
purchase the building so that they can expand .
S . Berg : Do you have any idea what this neighbor is talking about
with a tertiary business?
C . Hanley: I honestly don 't . I ' m trying to represent what she told me a
neutrally as possible . She said that they considered this
area a family community . She had expressed concern that
she hadn 't been notified but I checked with Henry and she
was not within the radius of the people who would be
informed . I told her that she would have been notified had it
been required . She seemed concerned and wanted us to be
aware of the possibility of a tertiary business. I told her that I
couldn 't discuss it in any way over the phone and I asked
® 15
c
her write something and obviously she couldn' t. She said
she would contact other neighbors and have them come if
there was a concern but obviously they are not here .
S . Berg : So as far as I ' m concerned this doesn' t hold any water.
C . Hanley : I just told her that I would reflect her phone call to the Board .
S . Berg : Is the only variance here the size of the lot? Are all setbacks
met?
H . Slater: Yes. Other than that one issue there are no other issues .
S . Berg : It looks like it' s very close to the 15 feet but it' s a little more ,
O . Kelemen : You indicate in attachment one ( 1 ) that you are retaining the
prior common boundaries . Are you not in fact cutting back
on the back boundary from the original ?
P . Schug : The back boundary we are the side and front boundaries are
exactly the same we are just cutting off how far back it went.
S . Berg : Why not leave it out to it' s full size?
P . Schug : We have put a road behind that building 'and a parking lot
right behind the building as well .
S . Berg : It' s really a driveway isn ' t it?
P . Schug : Correct .
S . Berg : Couldn' t that be used for access to both buildings ?
P . Schug : Probably would be .
Attny. Marcus : That ' s actually what' s on the survey here where he has
® indicated shaded areas of proposed right of way to be
granted to parcel B for purpose of ingress and egress .
S . Berg : I ' m saying it the other way around . Isn' t it possible that
parcel B could go out that far and the rights could be
extended to parcel C .
Attny. Marcus: Legally that is possible .
S . Berg : And if that were to be done than no variance would be
needed . Is that correct?
H . Slater: No ; they would still need a variance . You' re talking about
the width of the driveway X' s the width of the lot isn ' t going
to add up to 4/ 1 U h' s of an acre .
S . Berg : What I was looking for was minimizing the variance.
Attny Marcus : You ' re saying what if you brought the new lot all the way
back to include an acre .
S . Berg : we are suppose to , by law, minimize the variance and the
minimum is no variance required . I ' m wondering whether it is
feasible to have no variance required in this case . That' s my
question . In other words how far would that back line have
to go and allow right-of-way to parcel C to allow no variance
requirement?
H . Slater: This parcel has a parking lot on this portion of this old
original parcel .
I .
c
S . Berg : So it can ' t go further back than the edge of that access
Attny. Marcus : You always look for the simplest solutions . The simplest
solution would be to draw a straight line . I ' m speaking in
terms of simple from the conveyance of property and title
records perspective so that the property has the greatest
bundle of rights associated with it and what you' re selling is
the least that will do the trick .
S . Berg : But if there is a feasible way to not require a variance that' s
minimum requirement and that' s what we are required to do
by law.
Attny . Marcus : So you may want to try and hear from the applicant what
reasons there are for not doing it differently.
P . Schug : If you take a look at where the driveway is this area right
here is like a swale for water run off and stuff like that . It' s all
wooded which means we would have to come down here
and across the back in order to get enough acreage to get
that one acre . Unfortunately that doesn' t leave us enough
room for expansion on our parking lot . So it would make an
odd size lot that they couldn't do anything with and would
lock us in to not being able to expand anything back in our
lot as well . So this seems the most logical and makes both
lots more usable this way .
C . Hanley: About how many cars in his parking lot?
P . Schug : 82 1 believe .
C . Hanley : If we create this non -conforming lot and ICS sells it in the
future so what are we looking at down the road? Another
business could get in there .
Attny . Marcus : Two other businesses could get in there. It' s a sizable
enough building that I suppose there are businesses that
could operate in portions of it as long as they satisfy he
other zoning requirements you could potentially end up with
more than one business occupying that building .
C . Hanley: could we condition it in the granting of the variance?
Attny . Marcus : It' s not related to the nature of the variance and you have a
fairly wide berth to add conditions but not unless you can tie
it in directly to what detriment is the result of the variance .
To me it' s almost sort of the opposite as a relationship
because if the requirement is for an acre and the applicant
is asking to cut that by 40% you would be less likely to have
more businesses if you have less property. So to say that
you ' re going to condition the grant of the variance on having
fewer businesses doesn't seem logical . It' s difficult to tie a
use condition into an area variance . You have to be
assuming that there is something about having more than
one use on that site that creates a problem or some
detriment for the town or neighborhood as opposed to
having the site used for one purpose or by one business .
C . Hanley : I was thinking ahead to the SQR . If they put another
business in a smaller parcel they would be required
depending on the nature of the business to provide parking
spots for that business which means more black top vVnich
affects the drainage situation . Which could affect the SEQR .
That' s why I was asking about that.
If the variance isn ' t granted what does that do to ICS ?
P . Schug : It creates some difficulties with their business . They have
applied for some low interest loans from the government and
part of that ties in owning the business and purchasing
equipment and a percentage of what their equity is ties into
the amount of money they can borrow. If they did not own a
building they would probably loose the financing and
equipment they need _
C . Hanley : If we grant the variance and create a nonconforming lot and
ICS sells this or decides to put another business in there
down the road , can they do that?
H . Slater: By site plan review they can expand within the given
limitations of what the lot would permit . Otherwise they
would be back to see you on a whole different issue _ In
other words you can occupy with improvements up to 60 %
of the available square footage area .
Attny . Marcus : You could expand the building substantially and still be
within the zoning limitations for this district .
How does that change , if at all , the result of the variance
being granted . If this were to remain one ( 1 ) lot and in single
ownership the building could still be expanded by some
percentage .
H . Slater Everything you do has to go through site plan review with
the exception of a variance request.
C . Hanley: So they could roughly double the size of the building ?
H . Slater: He could double the amount of lot coverage he has. You will
have more parking lot requirements.
C . Hanley: But none of that can take place without some kind of review
process .
H . Slater: Right ,
Attny. Marcus : I don 't know that there is any distinction as to how this
parcel could be developed as a separate parcel to how it
could be developed if it were remaining as part of an
existing parcel .
• 18
0 . Kelemen : I agree. Further, if we don' t allow the variance and it's kept
as one perhaps development will be easier because there
are other ways to swallow up the future footprint of the
building .
Attny . Marcus : Well it' s easier because you don ' t have as many setbacks to
conform to .
8 : 52 PM : Chair Hanley closed the hearing .
The Board filled out the SEQR form for Cayuga Press . A
copy of the SEAR is available upon request.
*!****A*! k**Art* **!**# A*AA*!**!**AA* k**kit***ArtlAAk** **AA*rt ***!!*A#ArtAyt*!!!r**!'fe*it!*! k* RfeYe'!*!!t**!t*f 4fklr•/t##
(4 ) CAYUGA PRESS
_ =1ERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE
PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTEi- - -
-- = - •`ucARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE
GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIA111 ,7 -
FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
The are no physical or use changes resulting from the
granting of this variance . Therefore no undesirable changes
will be produced .
Motion : S. Berg Second: W. Matyjas
In Favor. 4 Opposed: 0
HER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SO .,A _
_ RSUE OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Creation of the lot will improve the current renters (future
parcel B owners) equity position allowing greater access to
the New York State STEED program funding . Purchase of
is 19
additional property to meet the full acre requirement of the
subdivided lot ( parcel A) could interfere or restrict the use
and development of said lot .
Motion : S. Berg Second: 0. Kelemen
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
° = RING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Although the relief requested is substantial , it is acceptable
due to the reasons outlined in findings A and
Motion : S. Berg Second: 0. Kelemen
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
HE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN
' L F•. T
ADVERSE EFFECT OR IIUF - - - - -: OD OR OR DISTRICT THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Municipal water and sewer is available and utilized by both
parcels. The SEQR review revealed no adverse
environmental effects and the there will be no physical
change to either lot.
Motion : S. Berg Second: W Matyjas
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
20
i
E . iN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF -
CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ,-
The difficulty was self-created
Motion: S. Berg Second: W. Matyjas
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR
SECTION 617. 5( 0) 12
Motion : Oers Kelemen - Grant request upon the condition
that the easement for the Towns sewer main be shown in
any final map in reference to the deed .
Second : Walter Matyjas
VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Chuck Hanley, Oers Kelemen , Walter Matyjas ,
and Stuart Berg .
NO : ( 0 )
ABSTAINED : ( 0 )
DECISION :
21