Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-04 1 k TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 4, 200 AGENDA . ( 1 ) John and Jerri Behler ( ) John and Petra Teeter (3 ) Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas MEM , PRESENT. Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Oers t J- elemen , Walter Matyjas , and Nick La Motte I ALSO PRESENT: Zoning Officer Henry Slater, John and Jerri Behler , John Teeter, Jeff Bugliari , William Deming , David Smith , Tony Ditommaso , Claudia Zan LEGALCOUNSEL: Randy Marcus ( 1 ) John and Jerri Behler , Hanley : Chairperson Hanley opened the hearing for John and Jerri Behler of 562 Ellis Hollow Creek Road , Ithaca to request permission to erect a freestanding sign ' x 3 ; ' square , residential use sign where only a 2 square foot sign would be permitted by current zoning . The sign is for a daycare business , " oah ' s Ark Playschool " . Chair Hanley asked the Behler' s if there was anything they wanted to add or stress to the board , Jo - Behler: We did bring the sign itself that is proposed to hang - (Took forward for the Board to view ). We were pretty careful to design a sign that wasn't neon bright colors or obnoxious - I know taste is a matter of personal preference but we did take that into consideration . We further have , throughout the project of renovating the house for the daycare ; we ' ve kept all the neighbors informed of our intentions. Operating a daycare as well as gone to considerable expense to deal with what could otherwise be traffic problems by putting in a turnaround area for parents so they can come into the driveway forward and go out forward instead of backing out what would be a dangerous situation . Given the placement of the trees and our garage and we are on the inside of a curve it tends to be an area where you won 't see it if it's posted back too far. As you come around the turn , we' ve on the ® inside of the turn so peoples eyes are naturally not going towards our property but across the road . I did give all our neighbors a copy of this vanance request and had conversations with my neighbors as well and have not directly gotten any objections . I would be very happy to be granted the variance and even if it were specific to this sign ; I understand granting a variance of a sign of this size might be one issue where we could then go out and create a real loud obnoxious sign and post it , we might still have a variance that would allow us to do that . * I would be happy to have the variance specific to this sign if that would help our chance in getting permission . C . Hanley : In that case , I will open this up to the board members . W . Matyjas : Is that two-sided ? Jo . Behler: Yes . W . Matyjas : What is that suspended by? Jo . Behler: We would do a post and cantilever or we might , it's fairly heavy, to do a post on either side . S . Berg : I ' ve seen the sign up for quite a while at the back of your mailbox . Jo . Behler: Yes , we put it up temporarily to try to get our occupancy up because cash flow is an issue when ® running a business and we' re in need of paying for the bills and paying for what was about a $45 , 000 renovation to the basement to open the daycare in the first place . There 's financial pressure on us to book the place . S . Berg : So that isn 't where you ' re going to place it? Jo . Behler: No , we ' ll place it , as the variance request says , 25' back as soon as we complete the turnaround . There ' s a big pile of dirt out there right now from excavating out from underneath the house , that' s going to be graded off as a turnaround for the cars to come in and out and in the middle of that turnaround is where the sign is intended to be . I did take measurements prior to the variance request to approximate exactly where we would put it . W. Matyjas : Will that be lit at all ? Jo . Behler: No , C . Hanley : When would the hours of business be ? Jo . Behler: We take kids in 7 : 30 am to 5 : 30 pm . Some come a little early and leave a little late , about 15 minutes . C . Hanley : Was there anybody here that wanted to speak to this ? R . Plaisted : We ' re Robert and Ellen Plaisted of 1776 Ellis Hollow Creek Road . We would very much like to support ® their request because we 'd like to see this daycare succeed . It' s nice having another house in the neighborhood that is occupied during the daytime which is kind of a rare event in our part of the Hollow now . C . Hanley : Thank you , is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Board members , Randy? N . La Motte : Have we got a problem trying to grant the variance and come up with , perhaps , some recommendations in the ordinance . In other words , if we grant this request, which I have no problem with that at this point , and then our recommendation doesn 't include what we have approved or are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Does anybody follow me ? C . Hanley: I ' m not sure . N . La Motte : Do you follow me Randy? R . Marcus : Not exactly, I know that the note Henry added to the mailing suggested that we' ve seen a lot of similar situations and I think all of them have been granted variances , I couldn 't call to mind any . N . La Motte : What I ' m saying is if we grant this and then our recommendations are for a little bit less than this sign , have we shot ourselves in the foot? • R . Marcus : I think that you ' re right that if what you are going to recommend is something different or less than this , then yes , you have a little bit of trouble there . One thing that the applicant pointed out is that the size of the sign is the same as what is already allowed in the zoning district . It would be my impression that the Town Board would be more inclined to make a change that was equivalent to what else is already permissible as opposed to going any further than that and I guess , I ' m not predisposing what your board wants to recommend , but if it's already allowed in that district to have a 6 square foot sign I imagine you might be thinking along those lines , but a 6 square foot sign being allowed for one business is not going overboard for other kinds of businesses . N . La Motte : I just wanted to raise that in the discussion . C . Hanley: I didn 't want to get to the letter to the Town Board until after we heard all the cases tonight. I think if everybody just keeps in mind what you ' re saying about they grant more than we recommend certainly makes sense . If anybody else doesn 't have any more questions we' ll move on . ® R . Marcus : If you 're going to move on , I just want to point out that you want to keep in mind you ' re looking at actually two different variances . S . Berg : Setback and size . C . Hanley : Do we need , does the Board feel it needs a site plan here where the location of the sign or are we okay with the notion of how far the setback is ? Do we want to get into an exact position ? S . Berg : I ' m comfortable with it ; I ' m very familiar with the property. I drive by it often and I saw where it was and understand where he wants to put it. C . Hanley: Same here . O . Kelemen : Just out of curiosity, since you have seen where it was , is where it's going to be further back than where it was ? S . Berg : Yes , from the center of the road , maybe it was 159 Jo . Behler: Yes , now it' s right off the back end of the mailbox; so the mailbox post is here and we just cantilevered off of that. For now , the turnaround is not done ; we have a considerable amount of excavation that still needs to be done . S . Berg : But would you estimate it was about 15 ' from the center of the road ? tJo . Behler: Yes , S . Berg : So like another 10 ' back in the middle of the turnaround . It' s quite clear to me where it would be done . O . Kelemen : Have you set the sign up more or less where you intend it to go ? Jo . Behler: No , other than going out and walking where the dirt is now and visually imagining where this turnaround is going to go and then I ran a tape measure from the center of the road back to where I felt it would still be visible enough . Again , it will be in the middle of the turnaround so the cars will go in and around it on their way out . O . Kelemen : The only reason I ask that question is I hate for you to be in a situation where the board were to grant the 251 , you put the sign at 25 ' and then you realize you still can 't really see it as you ' re driving down the road . Jo . Behler: Admittedly it won 't be as visible as it is now in it will be partially obstructed by a tree but that is where we want it . I think it makes a lot of sense there to be in the middle of that turnaround . H . Slater: We ' re going to have to conclude this and leave because there ' s going to have to be are arraignment here . C . Hanley : What we will do is go ahead and hear the other two applicants and then get back to yours so you can either stay and wait for that or you can call Henn+ in the morning . **srwxw �w �+ t+ ++ ++ ++*+*w*w,rwxw *w*+*+t+t+#+ #* *w*w rw ww w*w*+� *t+t+*•*wsrwww �w �w �+ *+ ++ t+#+ #w**y,y,y,w w ( ) John and Petra Teeter Cr Hanley : Opened the hearing for John and Petra Teeter of 610 Winston Court , Apt . ##5 , Ithaca who are requesting permission to erect a single family home structure at 4 Settlement Toad , Ithaca . it is for a modular home with attached garage . Chair Hartley opened the floor to Mr, Teeter. J - Teeter: The only that I would like to add is I have talked to all the neighbors in the surrounding area except for maybe one within 500 feet and nobody has raised an objection . Right now I have had the surveyor' s stake out where the house is going to be so everybody can view it and see if they disapprove of it . One minor change that 1 have done from what the site plan there is I 've moved the setback from the road back to 5' . - Hanley: Can you come up and show time board so they know what you' re talking about . ( Mr, Teeter approached the board ) . J . Teeter: Right now I have ' 4" from the required setback from the road and I ' ve moved the house back into the lot so that will be 5 ' and that' s just so that I won 't ever have problems in the future if I want to do something to the porch I won ' t have to come back and have another heaving . That' s the only issue. J 'd like to get approval as soon as possible if that ' s something we can do because we' re kind of in a time frame crunch andwe ' d like to be able to get started as soon as possible . N , La Matter While you ' re here , what would be the problem locating the garage behind the house'? Is it totally impractical ? J . Teeter'. I haven ' t thought about actually moving the garage to the back of the house - The only thing I could think of is that it would be the way it ties into the house as right now the roof line and the pitch of roof are in line . It would probably cost me more money for me to have that moved around and tie the garage roof into the i house roof since it' s a pre- manufactured home the roof on the house is already set . S . Berg : Is the garage pre- manufactured ? J . Teeter: No . Right now , the way that the house is planned on being constructed , the firewall between the house and the garage is going to be constructed on that side of the house . N . La Motte : At the factory? J . Teeter: Yes , at the factory. My neighbor who had wrote the letter, I showed him where the house was staked out to be at and where the bay window on the side of his house is , it looks out, my house is located towards the road enough he can look out and won 't even see my house at all . The most he would ever see would be a deck. And if I move the garage in the back , I think he would have something in his sight when he looked out . W . Matyjas : As far as the lay out of the lot , I see that it looks like you centered it with equal variance on each side . Is there any reason for going one side to the other? J . Teeter: The reason why I wanted to center it in the lot was that the variance would be 2' 10 " ; 10" of that being the overhang ; where as if I entirely put one edge of the house inside the zoning setback then I would be almost 5 ' on the other side so it would be even closer to the other property line . S . Berg : I have a question about the distance to the road ; the 45 ' you ' re quoting is from the edge of the road . Is that correct? We normally measure from the center of the road so in this case , is it 75 ' from the center of the road ? J . Teeter: Approximate width of the road is 60 ' ; I ' m not exactly sure . When I was speaking with Kevin , I 've been dealing with him , I ' m looking at the dimension zoning setback of 40 that' s from the center of the road did you say? S . Berg : Well , the zoning law is written from the center of the road , is that correct? H . Slater: . Correct , the road is a 60 ' road bed , so 30 ' of it is on your side of the road , so if he' s 30 ' and 45 , he 's 75' from the center. J . Teeter: Kevin told me that I only needed to be 70 ' back from the center. C . Hanley: Is there anyone else here to speak to this variance? Okay, any board members have anything else? In that case , we' ll close the hearing session and after we i finish , we ' ll go back and make decisions on these eases in order. You can either wait around for that or you can call Henry in the morning . J _ Teeter., You don 't need me for anymore questions? C . Hanley : I don 't think so . +� ++ +: +* **y,,rw,rwwwxw, wow*+t+t+t++ +t+*** w**,rwxw,rwrrw �w *w *+ *+ *� *+ +t+:•**xwxwsrw �w +w ++*+*+t+�+f+f+ ( ) Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas . Hanley : Chair Hanley opened the hearing for Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas' of 14 Bridle Lane , Dryden who is requesting permission to create a 12 ' +1- acre residential parcel at or about I8 Bridle Lane , Dryden . Chair Hanley opened the floor to Mr. Matyjas . W . matyjas : I don 't think you missed anything . Basicaliy the history is there . Like I said in the write up , we celebrated our ten year anniversary , so it was about nine years ago we had the discussion about possibly burring the land in behind us and as time went one We just did not do it . Most recently , there 's been more development in the area , and at this point , there 's only one or two lots left that aren 't constructed . A couple of other neighbors , I don ' t think I mentioned , have purchased and either split a lot next to them to make the lots larger or bought the lot next to them , again to protect them . In my case , I have two homes either side of me and then this open land behind . Basically this spring I became aware , I did not even realize the property had been listed , of the multiple listing and we had activity and literally within 24 hours notice I had to get an offer in to purchase it or somebody else was and my understanding through the real estate agent, the way they were cutting through was pretty much going to be in my back yard . To construct a home and access so I stayed up until about midnight and put an offer together but we did make it contingent on getting approval for at least one residential home out there . . Hanley : Before we go to neighbors , do you guys have any questions ? O , Kelement Walter, what lot is it that you own already? W _ latyjas : 14 Bridle Lane ; 2 . 13 where attached parcel 47- 1 -25 , 19 that ' s the one with the small pond and the dyke down there . . } element And your home is on that lot ? 1+V . Matyjas : Correct, that is my current residence , O . Kelemen : So your intention would be to buy the acreage and building a new home with no intention to merge the additional acreage with the lot you already own ? W . Matyjas : No , not the 10 ' greater parcel . There 's approximately 4 acres that would go to 16 Bridle Lane , or lot 2-5 . As far as my particular residence , I ' ll be looking to sell that house and build a new house . S . Berg : The lot 16 Bridle Lane that trapezoidal area outlined in yellow is that what' s being added ? J . Bugliari : I can speak to that , Jeff Bugliari , 16 Bridle Lane , this is currently my house ( showing the board ) and the way the house is situated here , my view is of this triangle area here off the back window. It's a very odd shaped lot and this pie it actually comes right down into the backside . My house actually turns and faces out towards the northwest area and when I knew Walt was looking at that area , because we knew there was some activity there , I asked if I couldn 't have the opportunity to protect my view and also keep density down and Walt was very hospitable to that . He asked if I wouldn 't be interested in a piece of this to kind of protect both by density and the only view we have out the back of the house . S . Berg : This isn 't subdividing a previous subdivision ? J . Bugliari : It' s a boundary area . H . Slater: Boundary line/ lot line adjustment . S . Berg : And that' s permitted ? H . Slater: Yes , it's an exempt activity under subdivisions . S . Berg : I have a question about lot shape that would be used for the future home , spec home or sold as a building lot , whatever, would that be a flag shaped lot? Where is that located ? W . Matyjas : Yes . H . Slater: Actually no , he ' s confused as I initially was . You better come up and explain . I . think what you ' re speaking about doesn 't exist . W . Matyjas : ( Approached the Board) The proposed remaining 10 acres would be the strip that was labeled Bridle Lane North and will not be a road way. S . Berg : Isn 't this a portion of a flag lot? W . Matyjas : It ' s a flag if you consider a long handle . There 's a small portion bounded by what they call Bridle Lane North which was a proposed roadway. The roadway terminates right here , it shows a small stub , that was , if phase 3 was developed , that road was to be extended and 11 lots built and extended into a cul-de- • sac up on this hill . o . we' re basically buying where the cul-de-sac and road would have went , using that roadway as our driveway and therefore , that's whys there' s only 60 ' of frontage , It ' s the terrnirration of the stub that they put in either phase 1 or phase 2 . l ' rn excluding the westerly portion that will be going to Bugliari at approximately 4 acres under a boundary line agreementiadjustment . As far as my request, IFm also excluding roughly about an acre here that would be behind 10 Bridle Lane and next to 12 Bridle Lane , I ' m excluding that piece because of the topography and it ' s bounded by the gas line , those two properties and then this strip of land . I S . Berg : So that piece would go to this property? W - Matyjas : It could , At this point we have no plans to go either way but J want to exclude it in case at some point either neighbor wants to get a piece of that , It just makes sense ; I don ' t have much need for it - S . Berg : A home would be built back here? W , Matyjas : Fight back up in here ( pointing to the map ) - S , Berg : You would sell the lot for the building of a home ? W . Matyjas : My intention is to keep it to sell my home . - Berg : Your own home would be up there and the access would be here ? 11U. Matyjas : Going up that strip . S . Berg : This would not be a road ; it would be your driveway W . Matyjas ; Yes . - Ielemen : The roughly one acre area you 're talking about that ' s behind tax parcel 25 . 13 , is the owner of that adjacent lot interested in acquiring that additional acre from you ? W , Matyjas : Actually , he ' s here , we haven ' t had any discussion - Kelemen : It' s not so much that I ' m interested in knowing whether there ' s a deal in place , it' s more that all the zoning hoard can approve is the reduction of road frontage that you ' re focusing on from the 125' to the 60 ' and as far as the action the zoning board is going to take is really not going to have any impact on that being separate from what you ' re going to end up with , W - Matyjas : What. I ' m looking for is I didn ' t want a stipulation that said a variance would be granted for a 12 acre parcel and then I 'd have to get a new variance if the neighbor was interested in the additional 1 + acre . R- Marcus , Jf. that were the case that would be another Jot line - H - Slater: That' s not what he 's here for; he' s here for a 60 ' road frontage . F . Marcus : I just wanted to point that out because I think you ' re right falter, we don 't want the variance to say eluded to a 12 acre parcel but it should be clear that by the board by doing this fs not commenting one way or another on what else you might sell off, VDU . Matyjas : I ' m not looking for subdivision approval _ N . La Matte : If we go this route Henry , the handle of this flag lot , would that permit the development of a Town highway? H , Slater: Sure , if he wanted to deed It to the Town . N _ La Matte : What I ' m leading up to is that would something prevent his plans going down the sewer and someone else seizing the opportunity to go ahead and subdivide that . H , Slater; There 's nothing to preclude it , R . Marcus : The variance wouldn 't impact it ane way or the other. N . La Motte , Can we condition it that this would be the development of one , H . Slater: Sure , because if you do something different the variance approval goes away . R , Marcus - You could , my only hesitation is I ' m wondering if that' s going to have any impact . In other words , let' s say you didn' t condition it , you said there ' s a variance for, the proposal is to build one house , nothing else could be done without having the approval of either the planning board if it was going to be developed somehow differently or another variance appeal . I though maybe whet you were sayfng is you really like the idea that this 12 acres is going to end up tieing used as one residence versus how could have been used for seven residences and oould you , here and now , by granting the variance eliminate the possibility that it would ever be used for seven residences by putting on the specific condition that this property would only be used for one residence . N _ La Motte : That's what I was talking about , R . Marcus : I don 't think you can do that because in other words you can grant the variance to say 60 ' toot is allowed for one resfdence and that variance would carry with the property for so long as it was intended to be developed that way or a house was built , But , if falter decided next year he wasn 't going to build a house here , he was going to develop seven lots , all he would have to do is go to the Planning Board and say , here ' s the plan , I ' m going to build a road and divide it up into seven lots , you can 't prevent somebody from not using the variance you grant them , You can grant them the variance and it makes it okay for him to do what he wants but he doesn 't have to do it and you can 't make up a condition that in effect changes the zoning for the property and takes away rights , A variance expands an owners rights not retract the owner' s rights so I don 't think it would stand up in court to say permanently this property can only be developed with one residence because right there you ' re limiting the owner' s rights and that' s not what the point of a variance is , The idea of getting a variance is to be free of Borne restriction , C . Hanley : But the fact that there was a subdivision already, he' d still have to come back to some organization if he wanted to other approval _ R , Marcus : Him or someone would have to go back to the Planning Board for approval , , Hanley : So , there'd have to be some oversight there ? R_ Marcus : There would have to be . In other words , Walter couldn 't just walk out of here with his variance and say thanks guys and then pick up with the plans that had been previously approved to go ahead with the subdivision , If for nothing else then , you have the 4 acres being carved off and deeded over to Jeff. It' s not the sarne subdivision anymore, , Hanley ; As long as some oversight in there somewhere . R _ Marcus - There would have to be Planning Board approval for anything else to happen , , Hanley: Does anyone else want to speak , W - Deming : My name is Deming at 10 Bridle Lane . I ' m here basically in support of the proposition . Our property at 10 Bridle Lane abuts the northern part of the property and I certainly have no abjection to what' s going on , I wouldn't be delirious if he put a rock and roll club in there but other than that , I would be supportive , _ Hanley: Let the record show if it weren 't for Mr, Deming , I ' d be driving a cab in Brooklyn right now _ D , Smith ,. David Smith , 15 Bridle Lane , the proposal that Walt has made does nothing but enhance the neighborhood and I would certainly support it whole heartedly, H , Bieber - I ' m Harley Bieber and I live on Crystal Drive and mar question is , how far up are you going to come with the house you plan to build ? W . Mat jas : It would be going away from Crystal' Drive between Logan ' s Run and Bridle Lane in the open field on the other side of the gas line . A . Ditomrriaso : I ' m Tony Ditommaso and this is my wife Claudia Zan , e own 19 and 21 Logan 's Run and we ' re just here for information just to find out , as this is just behind our lots and we just want to know what' s going on , I didn 't get a map so I have no idea how far that's coming close to us and where the home is actually going to be built , G _ Hanley : Did you find out what you needed to know" A . Ditummaso : I haven 't seen a map yet so maybe if I could take a look that would give me a sense of it . S . Berg : You haven 't placed the home on this" W . Matyjas : I have not placed the home . The next cont ingenCy is a pert test . If you look at the topography, this portion it going to Bugliari and this portion , we' re going to leave it , Here' s the gas line so the logical place I ' m looking to put a home site is in this relatively flatter area on the top of the hill , There ' s a small pond and the driveway is going to be where the previous road was proposed , C . Hanley; Is there anything you wanted to say in the back sir? You don 't have to . Okay , I ' ll close this section of the hearing and you can stay, you have to stay for the first two and then call Henry in the morning . , Hanley : Closed the hearing and the board began their deliberations for John and Jerri Behler- Aa IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The only neighborhood reaction was favorable , Board members familiar with the sight found the sign in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and readable at the posted speed limit. Motion . S . Berg Second : N , Le Motte In Favor: 5 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 : Given the placement of the trees , curvature of the road and area speed limit , a conforming sign and conforming setback would not be legible . Motion : S , Berg Second : W . Mat jas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : While the relief requested is substantial the proposed sign would have the same area as that allowed for any bed and breakfast, which is another residential home occupation permitted in any residential zoning district . Motion : S . Berg Second : N , La Nlotte In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL NMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEI HBORHbOD OR DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ,I Since the sign will not be ill urninated , and reasons stated in "A we find no adverse effect_ Motion : B . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor : 6 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- REATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Absolutely was self created , Motion : S , Berg Second : O . l elemen In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT/ NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER FOR SECTION Li 7 . 5 (c ) — 12 & 617 , { c} , +I � Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request — Based on the findings we grant a variance for setback requirements for location of the sign at a location not closer than 25 ' from the center lime of the pavement . Second : Nick La Motte Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request � Based on the findings , we grant a variance for a sign of B square feet , on the condition that this sign not be iflurninated . Second : W. Matyjas VOTE : YES : ( 5) Charles Hanley , Stuart Bert, Oers Kelemen , Walter Matyjas and Nick LaMotte N0 : (0 ) ABSTAINED : (0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED * wx *� *� +t+* *y ** ♦* ww irw *w *+ ++ +# *rryrwsew ww ww *+ *t*� *# #**rrwxw �w� +t+t+#*#y„rwxwxw *+ *� *+ +*###y +r* w,e w�w� _ Hanley: The board began deliberations for John and Petra Teeter_ A. IN OONIDEFING 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 ,E , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The adjoining neighbor on the south side expressed support for the variance . There was no other neighborhood reaction . Centering the home on this narrow lot minimizes the effect of this variance . Motion : S . Berg Second : W . MatyJas In Favor : 5 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 manufactured house has the fire separation wall built at one of the gable ends . Shifting the garage to the rear of the house would interfere with the neighbor's view to a ' greater degree . Bee applicants ' statement frorn , "The house would need to be rotated approximately 45 degrees to be completely within the required zoning setbacks _ Routing the house would put the front entrance of the residence towards the neighbor' s sine }yard _ Proper drainage of the property would be compromised if the home were rotated . Due to the width limitations of the home and the means in which it is delivered to the site , it impractical to change the physical dimensions of the home to compensate for the garage . Motion : S , Berg Second , N . La Motte In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A FOLLOWS : The required variance is ' 10 " on each end of the proposed construction . 10" of the variance oul'd be for the roof overhang , The remaining 1172 '{ offset from the property line would be visually insignificant when compared to the requirement of 1 ' 0 . Motion : S _ Berg Second : I . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 D. IN CONSIDERING ING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OFF IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Movement of the garage would require a longer driveway and more construction and paving and and for the reasons stated in "A" we find no adverse effect or impact an the neighborhood , Motion : S . Berg Second : W . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes , the difficulty was self created . Motion : N _ La Motte Second : W . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VALIANCE IS AS EXEMPT I NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . ( c) — 12 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Bert, Oers I elernen , Walter Matyjas and Nick LaMotte N : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED . (0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED # #* #w *w *w ** ** *+ *+ ++#+##****srwww w*+t+t+t+#**#** ** ** ** wLx *-A *f +t#*#**x*xwxw*w*w*+t+t+t+#*#*#* ** C . Hanley : The board began deliberations for Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas , A . IN ONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The proposal would produce lower density housing and preserve the views from existing hornes , and maintain the present open spaces , as compared to the development potential of this parcel _ Motion : N . Laotte Second : S , Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 B . I N 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 : All adjoining properties are developed , and this is the only method to achieve the desired results , Motion : S _ Berg Second : Q , Felemen In Favor. 4 Opposed : 0 O . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A FOLLOWS : The relief request is numerically substantial given the total acreage involved and the minimal density of the proposed project of the proposed development We find the relief requested but acceptable . Motion . S . Berg Second . 0 . I elemen In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL TAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : (quite to the contrary , this will have a positive effect on the neighborhood as testified to by several neighbors and to the reasons mentioned additionally in section "A" we find there will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood _ Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte 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 is self created _ Motion : B . Berg Second : N . LaMotte In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT ! NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER BEQR SECTION fo 'I 7. 5 q ) — 12 & 1& 1 Motion : Stuart Berg = Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Oers I elernen , and Nick LaMotte NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED i S LA ac) y TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - VY, ` August 6, 2002 Crab *v- AGENDA : ( 1 ) John and Jerri Behler 7Z Or ( 2) John and Petra Teeter ( 3 ) Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas MEM . PRESENT: Chairperson Charles Hanley, Stuart Berg , Oers Kelemen , Walter Matyjas , and Nick La Motte ALSO PRESENT: Zoning Officer Henry Slater, John and Jerri Behler, John Teeter, Jeff Bugliari , William Deming , David Smith , Tony Ditommaso, Claudia Zan LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus ( 1 ) John and Jerri Behler C . Hanley: Chairperson Hanley opened the hearing for John and Jerri Behler of 562 Ellis Hollow Creek Road , Ithaca to request permission to erect a freestanding sign 2' x 3' ; 6' square , residential use sign where only a 2 square foot sign would be permitted by current zoning . The sign is for a daycare business , " Noah ' s Ark Playschool" . Chair Hanley asked the Behler's if there was anything they wanted to add or stress to the board . Jo. Behler: We did bring the sign itself that is proposed to hang . (Took forward for the Board to view) . We were pretty careful to design a sign that wasn' t neon bright colors or obnoxious . I know taste is a matter of personal preference but we did take that into consideration . We further have, throughout the project of renovating the house for the daycare ; we've kept all the neighbors informed of our intentions . Operating a daycare as well as gone to considerable expense to deal with what could otherwise be traffic problems by putting in a turnaround area for parents so they can come into the driveway forward and go out forward instead of backing out what would be a dangerous situation . Given the placement of the trees and our garage and we are on the inside of a curve it tends to be an area where you won' t see it if it's posted back too far. As you come around the turn , we ' re on the • inside of the turn so peoples eyes are naturally not going towards our property but across the road _ I did give all our neighbors a copy of this variance request and had conversations with my neighbors as well and have not directly gotten any objections , I would be very happy to be granted the variance and even if it were specific to this sign ; I understand granting a variance of a sign of this size might be one issue where we could then go out and create a real loud obnoxious sign and post it , we might still have a variance that would allow us to do that, I would be happy to have the variance specific to this sign if that would help our chance in getting i,ssion - C . Hanley: In that case , I will open this up to the board members , W, Matyjas : Is that two -sided? Jo . Behler- Yes- W . Matyjas: What is that suspended by? Jo , Behler ; We would do a post and cantilever a we might, it' s fairly heavy, to do a post on either side _ , Berg = Ne seen the sign up for quite a while at the back of your mailbox_ Jo. Behler; `des, we put it up temporarll to try to get our occupancy up because cash flow is an issue when running a business and we' re in need of paying for the bills and paging for what was about a $4 , 000 renovation to the basement to open the daycare in the first place _ There' s financial pressure on us to book the place, _ Berg . So that isn 't where you' re going to place it? Jo , Behler: No , we ' ll place it, as the variance request says, 25' back as soon as we complete the turnaround . There' s a big pile of dirt out there right now from excavating out from underneath the house , that' s going to be graded off as a turnaround for the cars to come in and out and in the middle of that turnaround is where the sign is intended to be . I did take measurements prior to the variance request to approximate exactly where we would put it , K Matyjas ; Will that be lit at all ? Jo , Behler No . , Hanley '. When would the hours of business be? Jo. Behler . We take kids in 730 am to : 0 pm , Some come a little early and Ieave a IittIe late , about 15 minutes . _ Hanley_ Was there anybody here that wanted to speak to this? R_ Plaisted : We' re Robert and Ellen Plaisted of 1776 Ellis Hollow Creek Road . We would very much like to support their request because we' d like to see this daycare succeed . It' s nice having another house in the neighborhood that is occupied during the daytime which is kind of a rare event in our part of the Hallow now. D _ Hanleym Thank you , is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Board members , Randy? N . La Matte; Have we got a problem trying to grant the variance and come up with , perhaps , some recommendations in the ordinance . In other wards , if we grant this request , which I have no problem with that at this point, and then our recommendation doesn't include what we have approved or are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Does anybody fallow me? C . Hanley . I ' m not sure . N , La Matte : Do you follow me Randy ? R , Marcus ; Not exactly , I know that the note Henry added to the mailing suggested that we ' ve seen a lot of similar situations and I think all of them have been granted variances ; I couldn't call to mind any . N . La Matte : What I ' m saying is if we grant this and then our recommendations are for a little bit less than this sign , have we shot ourselves in the foot? R _ Marcus . I think that you' re right that if what you are going to recommend is something different or less than this , then yes, you have a little bit of trouble there. One thing that the applicant pointed out is that the size of the sign is the same as what is already allowed in the zoning district , It would be my impression that the Town Board would be more inclined to make a change that was equivalent to what else is already permissibie as apposed to going any further than that and I guess, I ' m not predisposing what your board wants to recommend , but if it ' s already allowed in that district to have a 6 square foot sign I imagine you might be thinking along those lines , but a B square foot sign being allowed for one business is not going overboard for other kinds of businesses , N _ La Matte ; I just wanted to raise that in the discussion . _ Hanley : I didn' t want to get to the letter to the Town Board until after we heard all the cases tonight. I think if everybody just keeps ire mind what you ' re saying about they grant more than we recommend certainly makes sense . If anybody else doesn 't have any more questions we ' ll move on . 9 R_ Marcus : If you' re going to move on , I just want to point out that you want to keep in mind you' re looking at actually two different variances , S . Berg : Setback and size , D _ Hanley, Do we need does the Board feel it needs a site pi an here where the location of the sign or are we okay with the notion of how far the setback is? Do we want to get into an exact position ? S . Berg : I ' m comfortable with it, I ' m very familiar with the property. I drive by it often and I saw where it was and understand where he wants to put it . C . Hanley - Same here . 0 . Kelemen : Just out of curiosity , since you have seen where it was , is where it ' s going to be further back than where it was ? S _ Berg ; Yes , from the center of the road , maybe it was 15' ? Jo _ Behler; Yes, now it' s right off the back end of the mailbox, so the mailbox post is here and we just cantilevered off of that , For now, the turnaround is not done; we have a considerable amount of excavation that still needs to be done . Sr Berg : But would you estimate it was about 15 ' from the center of the roast? Jo . Behler- Yes . _ Berg . So like another 10' back in the middle of the turnaround . It' s quite clear to me where it would be done . 0 . Kelemen : Have you set the sign up more or less where you intend it to go ? Jo _ Behler . No , other than going out and walking where the dirt is now and visually imagining where this turnaround is going to go and then I ran a tape measure from the center of the road back to where I felt it would still be visible enough . Again , it will be in the middle of the turnaround so the cars will go in and around it on their war out_ 0 , Kelemen , The only reason I ask that question is I hate for you to be in a situation where the board were to grant the 25' , you put the sign at 5' and then you realize you still can' t really see it as you 're driving down the road . Jo , Behler` Admittedly it won 't be as visible as it is now in it will be partially obstructed by a tree but that is where we want it. I think it makes a lot of sense there to be in the middle of that turnaround . H . Slater , We' re going to have to conclude this and leave because there' s going to have to be an arraignment here , C . Hanley: What we will do is go ahead and bear the other two applicants and then get back to yours so you can either stay and wait for that or you can call Henry in the morning , ( ) John and Petra Teeter - Hanley : Opened the hearing for John and Petra Teeter of 610 Winston Court , Apt. #5, Ithaca who are requesting permission to erect a single family home structure at 4 Settlement Road , Ithaca . It is for a modular home with attached garage, Chair Hanley opened the floor to Mr, Teeter , I Teeter ' The only that I would like to add is I have talked to all the neighbors in the surrounding area except for maybe one Wthin 540 feet and nobody has raised an abjection . Right now I have had the surveyors stake out where the house is going to be so everybody can view it and see if they disapprove of it. One minor change that J have done from what the site plan there is I ' ve moved the setback from the road back to v' . - Hanley: Can you come up and show the board so they know what you' re talking about . ( Mr. Teeter approached the board ) - J - Teeter; Right now f have 3' 4" from the required setback from the road and f 've moved the house back into the lot so that will be 5 ' and that' s just so that I won' t ever have problems in the future if I want to do something to the porch I won 't have to come back and have another hearing . That' s the only issue , I 'd like to get approval as soon as passible if that' s something we can do because we 're kind of in a time frame crunch and we' d like to be able to get started as soon as possible . hi , La Motte ; While you ' re here , what would be the problem locating the garage behind the Douse ? Is it totally impractical "? J - Teeter: I haven 't thought about actually moving the garage to the back of the house . The only thing I could think of is that it would be the way it ties into the house as right now the roof Iine and the pitch of roof are In line . ft would probably cost me more money for me to have that moved around and tie the garage roof into the i house roof since it' s a pre-manufactured home the roof on the house is already set- s , Berg : Is the garage pre-manufactured ' J . Teeter: No, Fight now, the way that the house is planned on being constructed , the fcreall between the house and the garage is going to be constructed on that side of the house . N _ La Motte - At the factory? J , Teeter: Yes , at the factory_ My neighbor who had wrote the letter , I showed him where the house was staked out to be at and where the bay window on the side of his house is , it looks out , my house is located towards the road enough he can look out and won 't even see my house at all - The most he would ever see would be a deck . And if I move the garage in the back , I think he would have something in his sight when he looked out , W. Matyjas: As far as the lay out of the lot , I see that it looks like you centered it with equal variance on each side _ Is there any reason for going one side to the other? J , Teeter, The reason why I wanted to center it in the lot was that the variance would be 2P 10 " ; 10° of that being the overhang ; where as if I entirely put one edge of the house inside the zoning setback then I would be almost v ' on the other side so it would be even closer to the other property line , B _ Berg : I have a question about the distance to the road ; the 45' you 're quoting is frorn the edge of the road , Is that correct? We normally measure from the center of the road so in this case , is it 75' from the center of the road's J . Teeter ; Approximate width of the road is 60; I ' m not exactly sure. When I was speaking with Levin , I ' ve been dealing with him , I ' m looking at the dimension zoning setback of 40 that' s from the center of the road did you say? _ Berg : Well , the zoning law is Witten from the center of the road , is that correct" H _ Slater: Correct, the road is a fib' road bed , so 30' of it is on your side of the road , so if he' s 0 ' and 45' 3 he' s 75' from the center , J . Teeter '. Kevin told me that I only needed to be 70 ' back from the center- . Hanley ; Is there anyone else here to speak to this variance ? Okay, any board members have anything else" In that case, we' ll close the hearing session and after we finish , we' ll go back and make decisions on these uses in order. You can either wait around for that or you can call Henry in the morning - J . Teeter , You don 't need me for anymore questions? C . Hanley : I don ' t think so . *. .*.,r«,r�,rx�,r�***�,►*rtw,.w,.,rr„r+ , «,w,�«,�x,�, ���.�,�.�.�+��������t�.,+.+ ++++,.,r, ***�,.�,.**w,r�x,.,rw* ( 3) Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas - Hanley . Chair Hanley opened the hearing for Welter and Mary Ann Matyjas ' of 14 Bridle Lane , Dryden who is requesting permission to create a 1 ' +{- acre residential parcel at or about 18 Bridle Lane , Dryden , Chair Hanley opened the floor to Mr. Matyjas . W. Matyjas , J don' t think you missed anything . Basically the history is there . Like I said in the write up , we celebrated our ten year anniversary, so it was about nine years ago we had the discussion about possibly buying the land in behind us and as time went on , we just did not do it. Most recently , there ' s been more development in the area , and at this point , there 's only one or two lots left that aren't constructed . A couple of other neighbors , I don 't think I mentioned , have purchased and either split a lot next to them to make the lots larger or Fought the lot next to them , again to protect them - In my rase , I have two homes either side of me and then this open land behind . Basically this spring I became aware , I did not even realize the property had been listed , of the multiple listing and we had activity and literally within 24 hours notice I had to get an offer in to purchase it or somebody else was and my understanding through the real estate agent, the way they were cutting through was pretty much going to be in my back yard. To construct a home and access so I stayed up until about midnight and put an offer together but we did make it contingent on getting approval for at least one residential home out there. C . Hanley -, Before we go to neighbors, do you guys have any questions? 0 - Kelemen : Walter, what lot is it that you oven already? W. Matyjas: 14 Bridle Lane ; 2 - 6 where attached parcel 47 -1 .25- 1 , that's the one vvith the small pond and the dyke down there- 0 - i elemen . And your home is on that lot? - Matyjas . Correct , that is my current residence- 0 . Kelemen - So your intention would be to buy the acreage and building a new home with no intention to merge the additional acreage with the lot you already own? 1 _ Matyjas : No , not the 1 D' greater parcel _ There' s approxi mate lyf 4 acres that would go to 16 Bridle Lane, or lot - . As far as my particular residence , I ' ll be looking to sell that house and build a new house _ S . Berg : The lot 16 Bridle Lane that trapezoidal area outlined in yellow is that what's being added ? JL Bugliarl . I can speak to that , Jeff Bugliari , 16 Bridle Lane, this is currently my house ( showing the board) and the war the house is situated here , my view is of this triangle area here off the back window. It' s a very odd shaped lot and this pie if actually comes right down into the backside . My house actually turns and faces out towards the northwest area and when I knew Walt was looking at that area , because we knew there was some activity there , I asked if I couldn 't have the opportunity to protect my view and also keep density dowry and Walt was very hospitable to that. He asked if I wouldn ' t be interested in a piece of this to kind of protect both by density and the only view we have out the back of the house , S . Berg '. This isn ' t subdividing a previous subdivision? J . Bugliari : It' s a boundary area . H . Slater; Boundary linel lot fine adjustment. S . Berg : And that's permitted? H . Slater: Yes , it' s an exempt activity under subdivisions _ S _ Berg : J have a question about lot shape that would be used for the future home, spec home or sold as a building let, whatever, would that be a flag shaped lot? Where is that located ? W. Matyjas : Yes , H . Slater : Actually no , he' s confused as I Initially was . You better come up and explain , I think what you' re spearing about doesn 't exist , W. Matyjas: (Approached the Board ) The proposed remaining 10 acres would be the strip that was labeled Bridle Lane North and will not be a road way. S _ Berg : Isn ' t this a portion of a flag lot' W. Matyjas: It' s a flag if you consider a long handle . There ' s a small portion hounded by what they call Bridle Lane North which was a proposed roadway . The roadway terminates right here , it shows a small stub , that was , if phase 3 was developed , that road was to be extended and 11 lots built and extended Into a cul-de- sac up on this hill - So , we ' re basically buying where the cuWe-sac and rood would have went, using that roadway as our driveway and therefore , that 's why there 's only 0 ' of frontage . It' s the termination of the stub that they put in either phase 1 or phase 2 . I ' m excluding the westerly portion that wifl be going to Bugliari at approximately 4 acres under a boundary line agreement/adjustment- As far as my request, I ' m also excluding roughly about an acre here that would be behind 10 Bridle Lane and next to 12 Bridle Lane . I ' m excluding that piece because of the topography and it's bounded by the gas line, those two properties and then this strip of land . S . Berg ; So that piece would go to this property? W_ Matyjas ; It could , At this point we have no plans to go either way but I want to exclude ft in case at some point either neighbor wants to get a piece of that . It just makes sense ; I don't have much need for it. - Berg : A home would be built back here? W_ Matyjas: light back up in here ( pointing to the map) . S . Berg : You would sell the lot for the building of a home? W. Matyjas : My intention is to keep it to sell my home. . Berg : Your own home would be up there and the access would be here? W. Matyjas: Going up that strip- B . Berg '. This would not be a road , Jt would be your driveway? W, Matyjas : Yes , D . Kelemen ; The roughly one acre area you' re talking about that's behind tax parcel 25. 13 , is the owner of that adjacent lot interested in acquiring that additional acre from You ? 1 - Matyjas : Actuafly , he' s here , we haven't had any discussion . 0 . Ielemen It's not so much that I ' m interested in knowing whether there's a deal in place , it' s More that all the zoning board can approve is the reduction of road frontage that you ' re focusing on from the 12 ' to the 0 ' and as far as the action the zoning board Is going to take is really not going to have any impact on that being separate from what you ' re going to end up with , W. Matyjas ; What I ' m looking for is I didn' t want a stipulation that said a variance would be granted for a 12 acre parcel and then I ' d have to get a new variance if the neighbor was interested in the additional 1 + acre . R . Marcus: If that were the case that would be another lot line. H - Slater- That ' s not what he ' s here for ; he's here for a 60 ' road frontage- R . Marcus : I just wanted to point that out because I think you' re right Walter, we don't want the variance to say eluded to a 12 acre parcel but it should be Gear that by the board by doing this is not commenting one way or another on what else you might sell off. W. Matyjas : I ' m not looking for subdivision approval . N . La Motte : If we go this route Henry , the handle of this flag lot, would that permit the development of a Town highway? H . Slater: Sure , if he wanted to deed it to the Town . N . La Motte: What I ' m leading up to is that would something prevent his plans going down the sewer and someone else seizing the opportunity to go ahead and subdivide that . H . Slater: There' s nothing to preclude it. R. Marcus : The variance wouldn ' t impact it one way or the other. N . La Motte: Can we condition it that this would be the development of one . H . Slater: Sure, because if you do something different the variance approval goes away. R. Marcus: You could , my only hesitation is I 'm wondering if that's going to have any impact. In other words , let' s say you didn 't condition it , you said there' s a variance for, the proposal is to build one house , nothing else could be done without having the approval of either the planning board if it was going to be developed somehow differently or another variance appeal . though maybe what you were saying is you really like the idea that this 12 acres is going to end up being used as one residence versus how could have been used for seven residences and could you , here and now, by granting the variance eliminate the possibility that it would ever be used for seven residences by putting on the speck condition that this property would only be used for one residence . N . La Motte : That' s what I was talking about. R . Marcus : I don 't think you can do that because in other words you can grant the variance to say 60' foot is allowed for one residence and that variance would carry with the property for so long as it was intended to be developed that way or a house was built. But, if Walter decided next year he wasn 't going to build a house here , he was going to develop seven lots, all he would have to do is go to the Planning Board and say , here' s the plan , I ' m going to build a road and divide it up into seven lots , you can't prevent somebody from not using the variance you grant them . You can grant them the variance and it makes it okay for him to do what he wants but he doesn't have to do it and you can't make up a condition that in effect changes the zoning for the property and takes away rights . A variance expands an owners rights not retract the owner' s rights so I don 't think it would stand up in court to say permanently this property can only be developed with one residence because right there you ' re limiting the owner' s rights and that' s not what the point of a variance is . The idea of getting a variance is to be free of some restriction . C . Hanley : But the fact that there was a subdivision already, he' d still have to come back to some organization if he wanted to other approval . R. Marcus : Him or someone would have to go back to the Planning Board for approval . C . Hanley: So, there'd have to be some oversight there? R . Marcus : There would have to be . In other words , Walter couldn ' t just walk out of here with his variance and say thanks guys and then pick up with the plans that had been previously approved to go ahead with the subdivision . If for nothing else then , you have the 4 ® acres being carved off and deeded over to Jeff. It' s not the same subdivision anymore . C . Hanley: As long as some oversight in there somewhere . R . Marcus : There would have to be Planning Board approval for anything else to happen . C . Hanley : Does anyone else want to speak. W. Deming : My name is Deming at 10 Bridle Lane. I ' m here basically in support of the proposition. Our property at 10 Bridle Lane abuts the northern part of the property and I certainly have no objection to what' s going on . I wouldn 't be delirious if he put a rock and roll club in there but other than that , I would be supportive . C . Hanley: Let the record show if it weren't for Mr. Deming , I 'd be driving a cab in Brooklyn right now. D . Smith : David Smith , 15 Bridle Lane , the proposal that Walt has made does nothing but enhance the neighborhood and I would certainly support it whole heartedly . H . Bieber: I ' m Harley Bieber and I live on Crystal Drive and my question is , how far up are you going to come with the house you plan to build? W. Matyjas: It would be going away from Crystal Drive between ® Logan ' s Run and Bridle Lane in the open field on the other side of the gas line . A. Ditommaso : I ' m Tony Ditommaso and this is my wife Claudia Zan , we own 19 and 21 Logan Is Run and we' re just here for information just to find out, as this is just behind our lots and we just want to know what's going on , didn ' t get a map so I have no idea how far that' s coming close to us and where the home is actually going to be built. C . Hanley: Did you find out what you needed to know? A. Ditommaso: I haven 't seen a map yet so maybe if I could take a look that would give me a sense of it . S . Berg : You haven 't placed the home on this? W. Matyjas : I have not placed the home . The next contingency is a pert test . If you look at the topography, this portion it going to Bugliari and this portion , we' re going to leave it. Here' s the gas line so the logical place I ' m looking to put a home site is in this relatively flatter area on the top of the hill . There' s a small pond and the driveway is going to be where the previous road was proposed . C . Hanley: Is there anything you wanted to say in the back sir? ® You don 't have to. Okay, I ' ll close this section of the hearing and you can stay , you have to stay for the first two and then call Henry in the morning. C . Hanley: Closed the hearing and the board began their deliberations for John and Jerri Behler, 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 GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The only neighborhood reaction was favorable. Board members familiar with the sight found the sign in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and readable at the posted speed limit. Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte In Favor: 5 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 : Given the placement of the trees, curvature of the road and area speed limit , a conforming sign and conforming setback would not be legible . Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : While the relief requested is substantial the proposed sign would have the same area as that allowed for any bed and breakfast , which is another residential home occupation permitted in any residential zoning district. Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte In Favor: 5 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 : Since the sign will not be illuminated , and reasons stated in " A" , we find no adverse effect. Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Absolutely was self created . • Motion : _ Berg Second : 0 , I elemen in Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT f NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617.5#c ) — 12 & 617 . 5(c ) — 10 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request — Based on the findings we grant a variance for setback requirements for location of the sign at a location not closer than 25' from the center line of the pavement , Second : Mick La Motte Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request — Based on the findings , we grant a variance for a sign of 6 square feet on the condition that this sign not be illuminated . Second : W. Matyjas VOTE ; YES : (5 ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Bert, Oers I elemen , Walter Matyjas and Nick LaMotte NO , ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION ; VARIANCE GRANTED C . Hanley_ The board began deliberations for John and Petra Teeter . 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 or THE AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ; The adjoining neighbor on the south side expressed support for the variance . There was no other neighborhood reaction , Centering the home on this narrow lot minimizes the effect of this variance _ Motion : S . Berg Second : 1 _ Matylas In Favor: 5 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 ' The manufactured house has the fire separation wall built at one of the gable ends . Shifting the garage to the rear of the house would interfere with the neighbor' s view to a greater degree . See applicants' statement from , "The house would need to be rotated approximately 45 degrees to be completely within the required zoning setbacks . Rotating the house would put the front entrance of the residence towards the neighbor' s side yard . Proper drainage of the property would be compromised if the home were rotated . Due to the width limitations of the home and the means in which it is delivered to the site, it impractical to change the physical dimensions of the home to compensate for the garage . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The required variance is 2' 10" on each end of the proposed construction . 10" of the variance would be for the roof overhang . The remaining 12 ' 2 " offset from the property line would be visually insignificant when compared to the requirement of 15' 0" . Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor : 5 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 DI STRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS , Movement of the garage would require a longer driveway and more construction and paving and and for the reasons stated in 5A" , we find no adverse effect or impact an the neighborhood . Motion : S . Berg Second : W. f1111at to In Favor. 5 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS . Yes, the difficulty was self created , Motion : N _ La Motte Second : W. Mat jas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT f NON =EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 697 . 510 — 1 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( 5 ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Bert, Oers F elemen , Walter Matyjas and Nick LaMotte NO : (0) ABSTAINED . ( 0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED C . Hanley: The board began deliberations for Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas . A. INOONSIDERING 'WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The proposal would produce lower density housing and preserve the views from existing homes , and maintain the present open spaces , as compared to the development potential' of this parcel . Motion : N . LaMotte 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 , FEAS [ BLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS . All adjoining properties are developed , and this is the only method to achieve the desired results. Motion : . Berg Second ; O . Kelemen In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 O. tN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE I SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONINO BOARD OF APPEALS FI N DS AS FOLLOWS - The relief request is numerically substantial given the total acreage involved and the minimal density of the proposed project of the proposed development we find the relief requested but acceptable , Motion : S . Berg Second : D , Kelemen In Favor: 4 Opposed : D 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 ; Quite to the contrary , this will have a positive effect on the neighborhood as testified to by several neighbors and to the reasons mentioned additionally in section "A" we find there will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte 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 is self created . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEOR SECTION 617 . 5( c ) — 12 & 13 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Oers Kelemen , and Nick LaMotte NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF "T'OMPKINS "TOWN OF DRYDEN in the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE JOHN AND alERRI BEIiLER The property located at 562 ELLIS HOLLOW CREEK ROAD (Town of Dryden Tar Map Parcel No . 75 . - 1 -41 ) I, CHARL.ES HANLEY.7 Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board, that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on: JUNE 4, 2002 Dated : Dryden, New York Date : 12002 Charles Nanlev • NOTICE OF DECISION I' UESDAY JUTE 49 2002 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by John and Jerri Behler of 562 Ellis Hollow Creek Road, who were asking for relief from Article 7 Section 1501 & 1502 . 5 a & c of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday June 4, 2002 with members present : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Oers Kelemen, Walter Matyjas, Stuart Berg and Nick LaMotte. AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : BEHLER A . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AiI UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONNG BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : ® The only neighborhood reaction was favorable. Board members familiar with the sight found the sign in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and readable at the posted speed limit. Motion : S . Berg Second : N. La Motte In Favor: 5 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 : Given the placement of the trees, curvature of the road and area speed limit, a conforming sign and conforming setback would not be legible. Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 1 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : While the relief requested is substantial the proposed sign would have the same area as that allowed for any bed and breakfast, which is another residential home occupation permitted in any residential zoning district . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte to Favor: 5 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 : Since the sign will not be illuminated, and reasons stated in "A", we find no adverse effect _ ® Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas N Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Absolutely was self created . Motion : S. Berg Second : 0 . Kelemen In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON- EjCEWT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617.5(c) — 12 & 617.5( c) — 10 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request — Based on the findings we grant a variance for setback requirements for location of the sign at a location not closer than 25 ' from the center line of the pavement . Second : Nick La Motte Motion: Stuart Berg — Grant request — Based on the findings, we grant a variance for a sign of 6 square feet, on the condition that this sign not be illuminated . Second : W . Matyjas VOTE : YES: ( 5 ) Charles Hanley, Stuart Bert, Oers Kelemen, Walter Matyjas and Nick L,aMotte NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED STATE OF NEW YORK * COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE WALTER AND MARY ANN MATYJAS The property located at 18 BRIDLE LANE (Town of Dryden Tar Map Parcel No . 47 .- 1 -25 . 2) I, CHARLES HANLEY, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board, that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : JUNE 41 2002 Dated : Dryden, New York Date: , 2002 Charles Hanley NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY ,DUNE 412002 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas of 18 Bridle Lane, who were asking for relief from Article 7 Section 702 . 1 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday June 4, 2002 with members present: Chairperson Charles Hanley, Oers Kelemen, Stuart Berg and Nick LaMotte . AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT: lkl ATY.IAS 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 GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : ® The proposal would produce lower density housing and preserve the views from existing homes, and maintain the present open spaces, as compared to the development potential of this parcel . Motion : N. LaMotte Second : S . Berg In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 Be W 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 : All adjoining properties are developed , and this is the only method to achieve the desired results. Motion : S . Berg Second : 0 . Kelemen In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The relief request is numerically substantial given the total acreage involved and the minimal density of the proposed project of the proposed development we find the relief requested but acceptable . Motion * S. Berg Second : O. Kelemen In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON T14E PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INS' THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Quite to the contrary, this will have a positive effect on the neighborhood as testified to by several neighbors and to the reasons mentioned additionally in section "A" we find there will be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte 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 is self created . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 TKIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON- EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617.5(c) — 12 & 13 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : (4) Charles Hanley, Stuart Berg, Oers Kelemen, and Nick LaMotte NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED STATE OF NEW YORK@ COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE JO.HN AND PETRA TEETER The property located at 24 SETTLEMENT ROAD (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 69. -2-23 -36) I, CHARLES HANLEY, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure ® of such Board, that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : JUNE 412002 Dated : Dryden, New York Date: 92002 Charles Hanley NOTICE OF DECISION UE DAY J UNE A, 2002 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by John and Petra Teeter of 24 Settlement Road, who were asking for relief from Article 7 Section 703 -2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance- Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday June 4 , 2002 with members present ' Chairperson Charles Hanley, Oers Kelerrien, Walter Matyjas, Stuart Berg and Nick La iotte . AREA VARLkNC.E APPLICANT: TEETER A. IJAI CONSfDERTNG WHETHER AN U DESUUd3LE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF T.HE NEIGHBORHOOD O DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY RANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS . The adjoining neighbor on the south side expressed support for the variance- There was no other neighborhood reaction . Centering the home on this narrow lot minimizes the effect of this variance . 11'ltetiam S . Berg Second , W. Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 B, TN CONSIDEfL1NG NVHETHE.R THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR TFIE APPLICAiNT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONTNG BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ; The manufactured house has the fire separation wall bu1It at one of the gable ends. Shifting the garage to the rear of the house would interfere it �t the neighbor' s view to a greater degree- Bee applicants ' statement from, "The house would need to be rotated approximately 45 degrees to be coMpletely within the required zoning setbacks . Rotating the house would put the front entrance 1� of the residence towards the neighbor' s side yard . Proper drainage of the property would be compromised if the home were rotated. Due to the width limitations of the home and the means in which it is delivered to the site, it impractical to change the physical dimensions of the home to compensate for the garage . Motion : S. Berg Second : N . La Motte In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 C. IN CONSIDERING 'ArHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The required variance is 2 ' 10" on each end of the proposed construction , 10" of the variance would be for the roof overhang . The remaining 12 ' 2" offset from the property line would be visually insignificant when compared to the requirement of 15 ' 0", Motion : S . Berg Second : W . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 D. IN CONSIDERING WIET14ER 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 : Movement of the garage would require a longer driveway and more construction and paving and and for the reasons stated in "A", we find no adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood . Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, the difficulty was self created . Motion : N. La MotteSeconde W . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 TfnS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON- EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SFQR SECTION 617.5 (c) — 12 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES: ( 5 ) Charles Hanley, Stuart Bert, Oers Kelemen, Walter Matyjas and Nick LaM:otte NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0 ) DECISION. VARIANCE GRANTED i