HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-06 r
TOWN OF DRDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 6 , 2002
AGENDA : ( 1 ) Richard and Ellen Fagan
(2 ) David and Mary Ann Meldrim
MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Walter
Matyjas , Oers I elemen , Nick La Motte 4
ALSO PRESENT: Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary �
Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) Richard Fagan , Applicant ( ) 5 ]
David and Mary Ann Meldrim , Steve Lipinski
LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcos
+�***�,r,wr,wr�,t,r**,wr�x�x�x�r,�r,�+«�«�«��x�xrve„�r�v*x :x :wrxr� r� r+►�+�x,kxwxv *, �****�****�x�r�r�r
( 1 ) RICHARD AND ELLEN FAGAN
7 : 2 PM Chairperson Chades Hanley opened the hearing of Richard and
Ellen Fagan , 27 Keith Lane , Dryden requesting permission to
construct a detached storage building at six feet from a side
property boundary where a minimum 15 is required , Chair Hanley
read the application into the record and noted site plan , statement
of difficulty from the applicant , pictures , letter from Cecil and Elmer
oehner dated 714102 , -and a letter from T. G . Miller dated 7/22102 .
7 : 38 PM Chair Hanley opened the floor to Mr_ Fagan .
R . Fagan : Because of the proximity to the abutting property owner the letter
and picture four is a view from that property owner towards our
property line , In order to demonstrate further no negative impact on
the property on that abutting property owner that is obviously not a
buildable spot and is plenty of setback already due to the natural
topography .
C . Hanley : And this picture number four is what we ' re speaking of, right?
R. Fagan : That Rs correct .
. Hanley , I didn 't get out to see this property as I 've been out of town , so
where would the }proposed structure be on this picture ?
R . Fagan : Generally , looking from the fence which is in the foreground , across
the pond through the woods , would be the approximate structure _
C . Hanley : Would you like to come up point to that so the board members
could see ?
R . Fagan : Sure ( approached table to point out location ) , looking from here I
couldn 't tell specifically when I over there taking the picture but right
in here will be the new structure ,
S . Berg : On the other side of that tree line ,
R. Fagan : On the other side of that tree lirte _ ROL Probabip won 't even be
visible standing here looking from the property owners lot over to
our lot , The flip side of that is picture number three which is from
our property looking here , this is the wood lot , and then the pond is
behind the woods here -
O. Kelemen : Which direction is the six feet ?
R. Fagan : The six feet is here at the fence line which is the property line and
want to come six feet this way ( showing board which direction ) .
This here is the dividing line approximately .
C. Hanley : So the wooded area is on the neighbors property?
R . Fagan : Yes . Our property is all the grass ,
C . Hanley . Is there anything else you wanted to add sir?
R. Fagan : No thank you .
C . Hanley : Okay, then I ' ll open it up to the board ,
S . Berg : What type of structure do you plan to build '?
R . Fagan : It will be a pole barn which will be text 111 siding , CDX roof
shingles , painted , It will be a lower profile than the one I ' m taking
down too .
S . Berg : This is not structurally sound , the existing structure ?
R. Fagan : Pretty soon it won 't be , It ' s over 30 years old and starting to sag .
It ' s , in the pictures from the road , you can see rust beginning on the
roofing , It really needs to come down , The new one is about half
the size of the existing one .
W, Matyjas : I 've been by there and couldn 't tell , as you get further back , the
topography there , you, mentioned the pond the on one side , on your
side , you ' re obviously on 'the high side of that?
R . Fagan : That' s right .
W. Matyjas : And it loops relatively flat between the old pole barn and the new
pole barn that general area is pretty flat .
R. Fagan . Yes , the rise is past the new proposed location as it goes up the hill
maybe 20 or 30 feet.
W. Matyjas : It looks like a group of three trees there , from that point up it looks
like it uses ,
R . Fagan : Yes -
S . Berg : The number two picture shows the best view I think and putting
those buckets there was a good idea , it shows just where it would
be . If that were nine feet further, in view number two , if those four
buckets indicating the oorners were nine feet further out allowing
the fifteen feet , what would be the problem with that ?
R. Fagan : The down side is that it doesn 't give our property the full benefit of
really removing it from the house . It's a pole barn for storage aid
I ' d like to remove it from the house proper as much as possible .
S . Berg : So the trees , in other words , just looking at the existing structure on
picture number two , the trees to the right as we' re looking at it,
those will block the view of this structure from the road ?
R. Fagan : Yes , those trees , in fact will be taken down they are an impediment ,
they are a danger because those are 30 year old Poplar trees that
pretty soon will come down on the existing barn . So I 'd have to
remove those but we have some bushes there that aren 't too
visible , there ' s a Rhododendron and Lilac Bush in that area plus
we ' re going to supplement the trees , we' re going to put some
Evergreen ' s in too once we take the old barn down .
S . Berg : So then that vegetation would block the view of this new structure
from the road ?
R .. Fagan : Yes , pretty much .
S . Berg : Pulling it out then , you would be more visible from the road ?
f -
R. Fagan : I believe it would especially from looking at it from the left corner of
the road looking down the driveway . So the closer we can get it to
the property line without causing damage to the abutting property
the better off we 'd be ,
0 . F elemen : Is there any utilities running to this new building ?
R . Fagan : No -
C . Hanley : The clump of vegetation there on picture number two , is that an
indication of a wet spot or spring or anything?
R. Fagan : No , those are branches I had removed from a tree that I hadn 't
moved off the lot .
W. Matyjas : You mentioned the Evergreens from the front , so much screening
from the road , the wooded area between the pond and the
structure , I couldn 't really tell from the picture , is there Evergreens
I
n that or is that all deciduous ?
R. Fagan : That property , the vegetation on the oehner's property, are
Evergreen and Poplar
primarily -
. Berg : Flow do you know that this is six feet from the line ? Is there a
survey that you know you are six feet off the line's
R. Fagan : There 's a fence there , there are some survey markers , but they are
prettywell spaced apart , My intention would be using the fence as
a guide to not just peg it at sic feet but to do a foot leeway, in fact
move it out to seven feet just in case that survey line , in case the
fence line isn 't a true indication of the survey line . I believe it pretty
much is . It ' s been surveyed within the past eight or ten years and
you can see a couple of the markers there .
S . Berg : So standing on one marker, I assume these markers are in the
woods , so it' s hard to get a clear view from one marker to another ,
R. Fagan : Because of the vegetation , yes . I know in the past when it' s been
marked it did follow quite well the existing fence line .
N . La Motte : W hat would preclude something drastic and move this building over
behind the well 's
R . Fagan : Behind the well ?
N . La Motte : It shows a well , over in this area here -
f
R. Fagan : It could be . It would be much closer to the house, say within twenty
feet of the house which is really what I want to try to avoid ,
N . La Motte : How do you arrive at that?
R . Fagan : The well on picture two , if you want to reference that , as you see
the east end of the house there , you just can see on the grass area
there , what looks like an old fashioned well , that is where our house
water well is , And moving the structure to that area I would like not
to do that,
S . Berg : That ' s the back of the house ; I world imagine it would obstruct
views from the back of the house I would assume ,
R . Faun : It would do that_
0. Kelernen : It doesn 't appear to be any windows on that side of the structure _
R. Faun : None on the east side , that's right , just the south side .
N . La Motte : I was looking for something as the criteria says , " Is there an
alternative feasible for the applicant to follow other than the
variance ? " So I was looking for something that might meet that
criteria of being reasonable , What , in this drawing , is in this whole
open area frorn the well on clown to the bottom of the property line?
R. Faun : Trees and grass . Really picture two gives you an idea of it from the
top of the hill looking down . It' s pretty much like that . There' s a
little more vegetation off to the west side , which is to the left of this
picture
N . La Motte ; But that is level in this area in here then ?
R. Fagan : Not as level as over where the existing barn is and where the
proposed barn is . The grade begins to pick up a little more directly
behind the house and in the vicinity of the well .
S . Berg : Is the property fine parallel to the tree line on the right of picture
two ?
R . Fagan : Yes , that property line and the related fence is right at the edge of
the tree line . We 've kept our side clear and the Goehners.' , for
obvious reasons , have let their trees grow up so it really forms a
line , a barrier there , .
N
S . Berg : So the reason I ask is that moving it straight back in picture number
two toward the camera , in other words , parallel to that tree line , it's
not going to move you any further from the property line ?
R . Fagan : Correct ,.
S . Berg : Because it looks like it could easily go twenty feet further back .
R. Fagan : It could if the grade starts to pick up I just want to mitigate having to
level that too much ,
C . Hanley : Randy , I think I know the answer, but just to make sure , if this were
one of those 12 'x22 ' premade sheds put on skids that could be
picked up and moved somewhere else , would it still require the
permit?
R , Marcus : I don 't believe so ; Henry could answer you off the top of his head .
Different municipalities zoning laws treat that a little different.
S . Berg : It would not require a variance then?
R. Marcus : Well , it would not require a building permit because in most zoning
lavers , something that is movable is not considered a structure and
the zoning law only applies to structures . Henry, if a shed or
storage unrt were not permanently affixed to the ground or were a
movable shed , and not attached to a foundation , does the Town of
Dryden Zoning Law still consider that a structure that has to comply
to setback?
H . Slater: I have to look rip the definition of structure . I don 't think it has any
bearing on this situation but I don 't want to just say that .
S . Berg : What is the bearing because this is going to be a pole structure ,
right?
R. Fagan : That is my intention .
H . Slater: A structure is anything constructed or erected on the ground or with
a fixed location on the ground or attached to something having a
fixed location on the ground .
0 . Kelemen , The first of the three was on the ground ?
H . Slater: Anything constructed or erected on the ground is one or with a fixed
location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed
location on the ground . Structures include but are not limited to
buildings of a size exceeding 150 square feet , walls and fences
over six feet in height , radio towers , swimming pools designed for a
depth of three feet or more , billboards , poster panel signs , All
buildings regardless of size shall be erected in compliance with the
setback requirements for the respected district- The following shall
not be classified as a structure for the purposes of this ordinance -,
fireplace , chimneys , flag poles and antennas - And a building is any
structure when space is covered or enclosed . So I think it 's
subject to the zoning ordinance and I always treat anything of that
nature .
S . Berg : Even though a permit isn 't required , it still has to meet the zoning
requirements ,
H . Slater: Well , we require a zoning permit for everything because you have
to conform to it except for a chimney or fireplace -
S . Berg : Even if it were on skids'
H . Slater : Yes , we would require a zoning permit .
R. Marcus : So the short answer to Chuck' s original question is it doesn 't
matter , It would be considered just the same whether It were
premade or not,
C. Hanley : I thought it was because we had a decision on one of those Sears
metal structures a couple years back over on W - Dryden Road .
Just checking -
S . Berg : We have two of those movable structures on skids in our
neighborhood but they have no walls . They put their boat under
them . It' s not enclosed .
N . La Matte : I 've got a specific situation in mind Henry . You said this thing that
covers anything , what it its on wheels?
H . Slater. Then it' s a wagon .
N . La I�Ao#te : I think there ' s a contradiction there .
H . Slater. Well , for instance , I don 't know if you have them , but Jehn Dedrick' s
vegetable display bins are on wagons .
N . La Matte : Well , it ' s a covered area ,
H . Slater: Well , there 's probably many Amish storage shed out there we don 't
even know exist that are in nonconformance with the zoning
ordinance because we haven 't seized upon them yet . I ' m sure it
happens every clay . People don 't even think about , they just go get
one and put it up , though many people do ask but I suspect many
more don 't-
R. Marcus : The same would go for a kid ' s playhouse -
. Berg : Well they generally wouldn 't be 150 square feet -
H . Slater: I would think probably not . A 10 ' x10 ' would be large .
1 . Matyjas : Just one last question . I think you described the benefit of keeping
it close to the property line , what would be the hardship of moving it
nine feet to the west or away from the property line ?
R . Fagan : I oul`dn `t characterize it as a hardship ,
W. Matyjas : I should use different words . What negative impact would it have ?
R. Fagan : Well , the negative impact is , in my view , the farther away from our
Douse , the better situation we have without detriment to the
oehner' s property .
B . Berg : Well , the view from the road as well .
R . Fagan : Yes , that's right. The closer you get to the property line , . .
S . Berg : The less intrusive it is ,
N . La Motte : I also want to comment that to the applicant , this is a scenario of
what you would like , is that the correct assessment?
R . Fagan : Yes -
N . La Motte : Rather than it being , " I can 't build it here because of the septic ;
can 't build it here because of the well , etc , . . " This was your first
choice ,
R . Fagan : That ' s right -
7 : 56 PM Chair Hanley closed the hearing and Beard began to hear the other
applicants and after that will return to this and reach a conclusion
and advised Mr. Fagan to contact Henn Slater in the morning or
40 stay for the next hearing .
(2 ) David and Mary Ann Meldrim
7 : 58 PM Chair Hanley reopened the hearing of David and Mary Ann Melddm
of 48 Lower Creek Road , Ithaca . Chair Manley asked Attorney
Bandy Marcus if everything needed to be reviewed ,
R. Marcus : Stated nothing has changed and is already in the record ,
C . Hanley : Reminded the Board the Meldrims are requesting permission to
leave a 12 foot by 20 foot detached storage shed at 8 feet from rear
property line where 25 feet is required and at the time one of the
objecting neighbors wanted to see what this looked like through
different seasons .
So Lipinski : Stated he was not an objecting neighbor and wanted to see what it
looked like when there was vegetation .
C . Hanley : Now that time has passed , Mr . and Mrs _ Meld rim , is there anything
you want to say before we take reaction from anyone else '?
D . Meldrim : No ,
C . Hanley : Sir, give your name and address for the record .
V . Lipinski : Steve Lipinski , 18 Lower Creek Road . . 1 requested we postpone
this so we could see how life In the summer was because that ' s
when we are actually outside as opposed to the winter even though
there' s no vegetation in the wintertime and you would think that's
when things would be visible and I guess that I would say that if we
had hired a landscape architect to pface this , they couldn 't have
placed it in a better position for us _ As it sits , it ' s not obtrusive , it' s
behind bushes that separate our yards now but It also separates
the back of their house , the visibility of the back of their house from
our backyard and I certain it does the same the other way so we
can co-exist and not intentionally watch and see what our
neighbors are doing . I certainly don ' t have any problems with that .
Dave and I have talked about maybe putting fn some more
vegetation around it in terms of evergreens that might block the
view so that in the winter time even more so that visibility would be
blocked because I guess if we had any long term considerations
about here , if we wanted to sell our house , what might the next
people in line think about this . It's a situation that I don 't think it
would come up . If they came at this time of year, I would have to
point it out so 1 don 't think that' s really a concern , The only other
concern that I would have or question and is not really related
specifically to this building but that this is not necessarily the setting
of a precedence in anything else if they decided they wanted to
build something else then that would not be something that would
be considered precedence setting . Otherwise I raise my hand to
vote for ,
C . Hanley : We would probably rather hear that from our attorney -
R. Marcus : No -
. Lipinski : I want to raise the issue so it's part of the record but otherwise
don 't have any problem - It's really fine where it is . I would guess if
e wanted we could put a fence on the property line . We could do
that right?
W, Matyjas . Isn 't the fence six inches from the property line 's
H . Slater: There' s no requirement unless you have one in excess of six feet
and you need a building permit and we require the applicant
demonstrate it' s on his property and that's simply because we don't
want to be any park of an encroachment situation . There ' s no
setback for fences because they are not a structure .
C . Hanley : Does any one have any questions? We ' ll close the bearing again
and you are welcome to stay or cell Henry in the morning ,
*-fr** e#*it fie#yeyr yeyr eyr yeyr**ve*ve*ve*, nr,ke fie: e Y e�weN�'wyHkN,kr,kr Yr W'k w W w�hr********it inr*,4*it fie# nr tint ynv yrsr tint yrr titer 1tr 1�v,r
8 : 03 PM : Chair Hanley closed the hearing and the board began their
deliberations for Richard and Ellen Fagan -
A , IN CONS I' DERI NG 1 H ETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE
PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTI LS 1 1LL BE CREATED B
GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
There will be no undesirable change produced in the
character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby
properties , in fact there will be an improvement made by
placing the new smaller shed in a less visible position than if
it were to be placed in compliance . A letter from abutting
neighbor on the east side supports the applicant protect _
See attached photo 11 21 3and4 ,
Motion : _ Berg ;second : W . Matyjas
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
8 , IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE
APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD ,
FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PUf SUE . OTHER THAN AN
AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A
FOLLOWS :
Yes , but granting the variance would permit a less visual
impact .
Motion : S . Berg Second : O . KoJemen
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
O . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE I
SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS
FOLLOWS :
While numerically substantial the impact on the community is
nonexistent ,
Motion : S , Berg Second : N . La Motte
in Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
D. iN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE
N ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT OIL THE PHYSICAL OR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
See A and O .
Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
E . I N CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS ELF-
CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Yes , the proposed placement is self-created in order to
provide the positive impacts noted above .
i
Motions _ Berg Second : O . I elemen
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
THIS VARIANCE E IS AS EXEMPT ! NONmEXEMPT ACTION UNDER
SEAR SECTION 617. 5 c . 7 2 & 3
Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request
Second : Waiter Matyjas
VOTE : YES : ( 5 ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Walker Mat jas , Oers
I elemen , and Dick LaMotte
NO : ( 0 )
ABSTAINED . (0 )
DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED
8 : 47 PM : Chair Hanley and the board began deliberations for David
and Mary Ann Meldrim ,
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
GRANTINGOF THE AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
The adjoining owner, after observing the property during the
seven month adjournment through various seasons
expresses support for the placement of the structure , The
effected adjoining neighbor reported the placement of the
shed improved the separation of the yards creating more
privacy for both owners .
Motion : S . Berg Second % _ t_ aMotte
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE
APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED 13Y SOME OTHER METHOD ,
FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE , OTHER THAN AN
AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS
FOLLOWS ;
Although feasible , the current location is more beneficial and
less preferable , See "A" above .
Motion : S , Berg Second : 1 _ Matyjas
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
, IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE I
SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS
FOLLOWS :
Although numerically substantial the impact on the
community is positive . Bee "A" above .
Motion : _ Berg Second : N . LaMotte
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
Dw IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE E WILL HAVE
AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFF
DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
See "A" and " D " above .
Motion : S . Berg Second : W . Maty jas.
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A FOLLOWS .f
Yes -
Motion : S . Berg Second : WL Matyjas
In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT/ NON -EXEMPT ADTI N UDDER SEAR
SECTION 617. 5(c ] — 12 & 1
Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request
Second : Oers Kelernen
VOTE : YES : ( ) Charles Harley , Stuart Bert , Oers Kelemen , Walter
Matyjas and Mick La Motte
NO : ( 0 )
ABSTAINED : { D }
DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED
wwwwwxw*,tf*fw#wswrwwwxw*wow*w#w*www�rw�w*w*wtw#**rrrwww**,t **w:w,rw,rw*w,twf*t*twrw«www *w*wfw�www
9 : 12 PM : Chair Hanley asked the Board if they wanted to table the
signage until the next meeting and the Board agreed .
Motion : Stuart Berg — adjourn meeting at 9 : 17 pm .
Second : Walter Matyjas
In Favor: 5
Opposed : 0
STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TO)N N OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
RICHA.RD AND ELLEN FAGAN
The property located at 27 KEI-TH LANE
(Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 49 _- 1 - 16. 21 )
1 , 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:
AUGUST 6, 2002
:Dated : Dryden, New York
Date: 12002
Charles Hanley
NOTICE OF DECISION
TUESDAY AUGUST 6 , 2002
A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Richard and Ellen
:Fagan of 27 Keith Lane, 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 August 6, 2002 with members present : Chairperson Charles Hanley, Oers
Kelemen, Walter Matyjas, Stuart Berg and Nick LaMoue.
AREA VARIANCE
APPLICANT: FAGAN
A . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE
PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES VAgLL BE CREATED BY
GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
® There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of
the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, in fact there
will be an improvement made by placing the new smaller shed in a
less visible position than if it were to be placed in compliance . A
letter from abutting neighbor on the east side supports the applicant
project . See attached photo 1 , 2, 3 and 4 .
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 :
Yes, but granting the variance would permit a less visual impact .
Motion : S . :Berg Second : O . Kelemen
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
v
Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL.,, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS
FOLLOWS :
While numerically substantial the impact on the community is
nonexistent .
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 MPACT ON THE PIlYSICAL OR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS N THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
DISTRICT, THE ZONrI'NG BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
See A and C .
Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte
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 proposed placement is self-created in order to provide the
P Po P
positive impacts noted above.
Motion : S. Berg Second : O . Kelemen
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON- EXEMPT ACTION UNDER
SEQR SECTION 61. 7.5(c) — 1 , 2 & 3
Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request
Second : Walter Matyjas
VOTE : YES : ( 5 ) Charles Hanley, Stuart Berg, Walter Matyjas, Oers
Kelemen , and Nick LaNlotte
NO : (0)
ABSTAINED : (0)
DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED
STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPK.INS
TOWN OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
DAVID AND MARY ANN MELDRUM
The property located at 48 LOWER CREEK ROAD
(Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No _ 45 . - 1 -34)
1:, 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 :
AUGUST 6, 2002
Dated : Dryden, New York
Date: 92002
Charles Hanley
NOTICE OF DECISION
TUESDAY AUGUST 6, 2002
A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by David and Mary Ann
Meldrum of 48 Lower Creek Road, who were asking for relief from Article 7 Section
754 . 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance.
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on
Tuesday August 6, 2002 with members present: Chairperson Charles Hanley, Oers
Kelemen, Walter Matyjas, Stuart Berg and Nick LaMotte .
AREA VARIANCE
APPLICANT : MELDRUM
Ae IN CONSIDERING WI- ETHER 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 adjoining owner, after observing the property during the seven
month adjournment through various seasons expresses support for
the placement of the structure. The effected adjoining neighbor
reported the placement of the shed improved the separation of the
yards creating more privacy for both owners_
Motion : S. Berg Second : N. LaMotte
In savor: 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 :
Although feasible, the current location is more beneficial and less
preferable. See "A" above .
Motion : S. Berg Second : W. Matyjas
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS
FOLLOWS :
Although numerically substantial the impact on the community is
positive . See "A" above .
Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte
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 :
See "A" and "C" above .
Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
E. TNT CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Yes .
Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas
In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON- EXEM_P'1' ACTION UNDER SEQR
SECTION 617.5(c) — 12 & 13
Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request
Second : Oers Kelemen
VOTE : YES : (5) Charles Hanley, Stuart Bert, Oers Kelemen, Walter
Matyjas and Nick La Motte
NO : ( 0)
ABSTAINED * (0)
DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED