Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-12 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12 , 2002 AGENDA . ( 1 ) Alicia Alexander ( 2) Richard & Tracy Marisa MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Walter Matyjas , Oers Kelemen , Nick La Motte ALSO PRESENT : Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) Alicia Alexander ( 2 ) Richard Marisa , Mark Varvayanis ; Peggy Walbridge , Robin Ceily LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus Da ( 1 ) ALICIA ALEXANDER 7 : 30 PM Chairperson Hanley opened the hearing of Alicia Alexander of 136 Hunt Hill Road , Ithaca who is requesting permission to erect a 3 square foot freestanding sign at 0' from the edge of the right of way ' where 15 ' is required . Chair Hanley read the record into file . Chair Hanley asked Randy if it was necessary to read the special permit from the Town Board . R . Marcus : I don 't know obviously there' s no necessity to read it because it's part of the record being distributed to all the members of the Board . If we' re going to call attention to anything , call attention to the memo dated November 29 , 2001 to Ms . Alexander regarding conditions of the approval in the middle paragraph ; the second sentence of the middle paragraph , "Attorney Perkins suggested there be a note in the approval that the sign is not being approved and requires a variance" , and at the bottom of that just after the resolution approving the special permit , "This approval shall not constitute approval for the applicants sign . The applicant will seek a variance for the sign " and that was as of November 29 , 2001 . The other attachment again is labeled page 2 of Special Permit Review and the second paragraph reads , "The second concern is that of the setback of the Amazing Grace free standing sign . It appears to be a zero or less feet setback and is subject to relocation or ZBA consideration . " This is the end of a letter from Henry copied to the town board members to Ms . Alexander, C . Hanley : While there is no neighborhood reaction in the file , the applicant has just presented two letters which I ' ll read into the record . Letter dated November 11 , 2002 from Laura Stengler and K . A . Schott of 1 147 Hunt Hill Road , Ithaca : "We are writing to state our approval of ® the variance of Alicia Alexander, 136 Hunt Hill Road to have a sign for her bed and breakfast located in its present position . The current placement of that sign as well as the trees nearby present no problem to us as nearest neighbors . Sincerely , Laura Stengler and K .A . Schott. " The next letter read as follows : "To the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Dryden from Peggy Walbridge . We are writing in support of Alicia Alexander's request for a variance for her current sign on her property on Hunt Hill Road . I have no problem with her sign or trees . Signed Peggy Walbridge ; dated 121" November, 2002 . " That is the only neighborhood reaction I have . H . Slater: I received none . C . Hanley : Ms . Alexander, is there anything you 'd like to add or underline ? A . Alexander: There is a pre-existing stone wall that , although I am in the process of redoing the stone wall , it' s been there for years and stands with my sign behind it . ( Noted she had a picture of it and showed the board members ) . Mr. Berg came out and saw the whole deal . In terms of presenting any issues about getting plowed into by the snowplow , it seems it would have to be one massive snowplow to get through the stone wall first . Also , it's not standing too close to the road as far as I can see . S . Berg : Its 4 feet 1 inch from the road side of the post to the edge of the stone wall . Then it' s 6 feet 4 inches from the edge of the stone wall to the edge of the pavement. I didn 't measure the actual thickness of the stone wall but it' s about a 1 X2 feet thick . So that' s about 12 feet from the edge of the pavement and is over 4 feet behind that stone wall . The stone wall isn 't just a stone wall ; there 's dirt behind it up flush , more like a retaining wall . C . Hanley : Do you an exact measurement Henry? H . Slater : Ms . Alexander and I measured it about a year ago and came up with about 25 feet from the center of the pavement . Whatever I wrote to the Town Board a year ago is what the measurement was . R. Marcus : The thing that Henry put in the letter to Ms . Alexander from early November last year, it appears to be a zero or less setback from the road right-of-way . So that would all correspond to what you just said . S . Berg : I don 't understand how that corresponds ? R. Marcus : The road right-of-way is 50 feet . S . Berg : That' s being disputed in court right now . R . Marcus : I 'm just going by standard New York and I ' m only involved in the Town as far as your board goes . S . Berg : So , in this case I don 't think we don 't have a standard setback for that particular road . R . Marcus : I ' m not talking about a standard setback , I ' m just saying , it's pretty well established New York State law is that if a town acquires a O road by use , it' s three rods wide : a rod is 16 '/2 feet, three comes to 49 Y2 feet. I ' m just giving you a black letter law . I don 't know what's being disputed and I ' m sorry I ' m not up on local issues . It' s not just New York State that comes from colonial times . S . Berg : There happens to be a court case right now. In fact there ' s some people here who are involved in that court case including Alicia Alexander and I think the Town is on the other side of that , or at least Jack Bush is . W. Matyjas : But for zoning purposes , we' re talking about the right of way as defined not as used . I think the Town issue is what portion of the right of way is used versus of the deed uses . C . Hanley : Okay, was there anything else you would like to add ? Anyone who wants to speak to this issue , just raise your hand and state your name and address for the recorder. P. Walbridge : Peggy Walbridge , 123 Hunthill Road . The Town has indicated they do not have the deed to this road and that it is customary usage and so it is acknowledged that it does not have fifty feet on this road . I fully support , and in talking to some of the neighbors , we all support Alicia . R. Ceily : Robin Ceily , I ' m a neighbor of Alicia on the next road , 332 Kirk Road . I ' m not sure why we' re talking about the setback from the center line because the zoning ordinance doesn 't say anything about the center line ; it only talks about the road right of way . ASince Judge Mulvey himself in his decision could not establish a road right of way line , I ' m not sure we can tonight decide where the right of way line is . I just want to emphasize that even though letters came out from the zoning officer talking about the center line , the zoning ordinance says nothing about the center line , only about the road right of way at least as far as I can see . C . Hanley : Do you want to speak to that at all Randy? R. Marcus : Actually , I had a question for Henry on that . On the October 11 to memo about tonight's hearing , you say that, " . . . free standing sign for a home occupation which has been determined to be about 0 feet from the edge of the public road right of way where 15 ' or 40 ' from the road center is required . " That I wasn 't sure where the 40' from the road center part of that came from because what Robin was just saying is the only reference that I find is 15 ' from the road right of way. H . Slater: That' s correct because there is confusion about where the road right of way ends , typically in a situation where we look at a sign if you had assumed there was a 25 ' easement then you would add 15 ' and that was only to give you some idea what typically you would see a sign setting from the center of the road . But, in this case it is in dispute and I have no clue where the edge of the road right of way was but we started this a year or so ago , I thought I knew where the road right of way is but now that's no longer ® known . I believe , typically, part of the decision is that the maintained use is where the road is assumed to be from the backside of the ditch to the center of the road but there really isn 't a ditch in front of Alicia 's house so who knows where it is . So typically a sign would be not closer than 40 ' from the center of the pavement and that' s why I threw that in there because I assumed this would become something that we would have try to figure out where the easement is because we don 't know. W. Matyjas : From a legal standpoint , can we grant a variance in a disputed edge of right of way . Usually we would say you ' re allowed to put the sign " x" amount of feet . Instead of giving you a 15 ' setback , we ' ll give you a 5 ' setback , but if it' s in dispute , it' s a magical moving line . S . Berg : The way I looked at it is the intent of the zoning law is it would be so there isn 't damage from a snow plow, there isn 't blockage of view , etc . The fact this is behind a stone retaining wall and the fact it is within a foot or two of an oak tree that's got to be four feet in diameter, meaning if something is going to hit that post , it's going to hit the oak tree . Basically, can it be done on the intent of the law that it' s not a problem ? R . Marcus : You can take into account whatever factors you think are relevant to that particular case in hand ; that could involve what ever trees are there , the topography of the land in between the road and the Osign , the curvature of the road , other issues with regard to line of sight . I agree with Oers that it can be done if you want to do it this way by virtue of where the sign is currently located . You 're not as specific as virtually every other case you would end up being because you ' re tying it into a measurement . Most of those cases , your dealing with before there 's any improvement done and the reason you ' re being specific in terms of measurement is because you don 't have anything in the ground yet and you want the property owner to know specifically how many feet they need to be from the front line or side line , whatever the case may be to whether they build . It's the fewer cases that you address where there' s already something built and you 've got to decide whether it' s going to be allowed . Usually you have a specific measurement because you usually have a survey map where a surveyor has told you what the specific measurement is . I think Oers is right that you could do it simply based on the current location taking into account whatever factors you feel are important to this case . N . LaMotte : You don 't have a hard copy of that picture being circulated unfortunately? That would be something to put in the file . S . Berg : I also measured the area of the sign , it' s 2 . 96 square feet. It' s just under 3 square feet . H . Slater: It' s allowed to be 6 square feet. 0 O C . Hanley : I ' m a little at odds with how to proceed here as this is a pretty nebulous situation . While I realize our actions aren 't presidential , it worries me that we would be basing it on pretty much saying the sign is okay where it is , which is basically what a variance would come down to . I ' m a little concerned how to proceed here especially now we' re not even sure where the right of way is or if there is a right of way in existence . S . Berg : Can we define it as current location "x" feet from center of the road and not even refer to the right of way? N . LaMotte : That was something I was thinking about . That I think most anyone can agree on where the center of the highway is . The dispute is how far to the edge or what the Town has got or does not have . And , if we define this is as present location "x" number of feet from the center of the highway , that's assuming they' re not going to make some drastic relocation of the highway. H . Slater: I think when you get finished with this particular case , this points out a need to request that the Town consider a different way of measuring setback from signs , rather that from the edge of the road easement. C . Hanley : Does the Town have any basis for action on this situation ? What would be the basis for their action against Ms . Alexander supposing they ordered her to remove the sign , speaking hypothetically? They would base it on what? oR. Marcus : Well , on 1501 because of 15 ' any road right of way line . C . Hanley : I thought that was in dispute . R. Marcus : Well , apparently it is , and again , I ' m sorry I don 't know the details of the dispute . I ' m sure that in this action the Town has its perspective on where the road right of way is so if it were going to take some action with respect to the sign it would base it on where the Town thinks the road right of way line is . I ' m sorry I can 't be more specific about this matter. N . LaMotte : If we grant the applicant a variance to leave that sign as located at "x" number of feet from the center of the highway , the Town has got to challenge that variance before they can have it moved ? S . Berg : Yes , but the variance doesn 't even mention the right of way width . N . LaMotte : Let's forget that . R. Marcus : Just say you ' re permitting it to exist where it exists and then if the Town Board wants to challenge your grant of the variance , is that what you ' re saying ? N . LaMotte : I ' m saying that' s the only avenue for them to achieve the effect of moving the sign . In other words , the sign becomes legal if we give her the variance so then they have got to go the long way around . R. Marcus : Yes , and they would have to find that you were arbitrary and capricious in your determination . So if the question is by giving the variance where you don 't know the answer to the question where is the right of way line , is that arbitrary or capricious , I don 't have any way to tell you . My own opinion , no , if you take into account all the various factors that have been thrown around like the tree near by and the retaining wall and the difference in height from the road to the sign , you know all the kinds of things you would normally take into account when you ' re considering a sign variance , I would think a judge would have a real hard time saying that you 've been arbitrary or capricious . The only possible lack of strength to your granting of the variance here is that you don 't have an actual measurement . I ' m not talking about anything to do with the where the right of way is , I ' m just saying that in most of your cases , in the vast majority of your cases , you have a survey map that has a surveyors measurement on it as to whatever location may be for the improvement you ' re talking about. There have been a few cases along the way where you haven 't had a survey map and this same question has come up . Is it a weaker position for the board to be in to grant a variance when you don 't actually have survey map but I said yeah it's a weaker position than if you have a survey map but that' s a pretty fine distinction . N . LaMotte : Did you indicate , Henry , that at some point you did have a measurement from the center of the highway to this sign ? H . Slater: Yes . The applicant and I measured it together. N . LaMotte : Have you got that out in your file? S . Berg : By my measurement yesterday , which I didn 't measure the half Owidth of the road , but if it is 11 ' then I would say it's about 23 ' from the center line . W. Matyjas : I guess getting back to the point of the 1501 , it reads , " . . . no portion of any sign shall be located closer than 15 ' to any road right of way line . " That line is in dispute so it's moving , literally . If you take it as edge of pavement, it's 11 ' from center line . If you take it from three rods , it' s 25 ' from center line . Even if we took it 11 ' from center line , you ' re still in that 15 ' , but you still require a variance regardless of where that line is . Is that correct? So I think all we' re saying is if we grant a variance instead of doing a standard variance saying instead of 15 ' setback you only need 51 , we 'd have to be very specific and say you can be no more than 23 ' from center line . R. Marcus : Yeah , then in the current location which the zoning officer has indicated from previous measurement to be 23 '/2 feet . . . W. Matyjas : . . . we don 't want to measure 22 . 11 on a survey map . S . Berg : We can say approximately . R . Marcus : I ' m not telling you not to , I ' m saying that if you had exact measurements you would have that much stronger position . But , I ' m not saying that you ' re open to challenge just because you don 't have a survey map . The same point again has nothing to do with how wide the right of way is it' s just a matter of how much evidence you have in your application . i 4 O . Kelemen : We can make reference to the recollection to the survey taken approximately a year ago . R . Marcus : Well , I think Henry is finding it in his files so he may have a hard copy. S . Berg : It wasn 't a survey though they just measured it with a tape measure . C . Hanley : Again , I have no problem with the sign , it' s a nice sign , it looks great there , it' s a nice business , it' s just to me sloppy work. No measurements , no surveys , approximately's , kind ofs , it just bothers me . I don 't know how the Town could take any action against and making her move the sign anyway because they don 't know any more than we' re seeing here . So , I almost wonder why we don 't simply postpone until either the case is or we have a survey or something . These things have a way of coming back at us . W. Matyjas : The only reference in the record is it appears to be a zero or less feet setback . And , if that line 's in dispute , you could argue it' s actually is setback . A . Alexander: Despite how far, or whatever, isn 't the whole concept of a variance saying even though it' s not in compliance , we ' re going to grant it to you anyway? S . Berg : We usually say how much out of compliance it is . We usually say , for example in a side lot set back , it requires 15 ' and if someone 0 builds a shed and you know from the survey map that they' re 12' , so we' re granting them a T variance to allow them to be within 12' feet of the side property line . W. Matyjas : Here we don 't know . Is it zero , is it 11 , is it 12 , is it appears to be? That's what we ' re looking at . C . Hanley : And also remember our job is down the road because the variance stays with the property after you sell it and they sell it and they sell it . Our charge is to look ahead into the future . Speaking for myself, there' s no problem with the sign as it is now ; I ' m not worried about that . But you never know what' s coming down the line and I just personally hate to leave loose ends since there seems to be so much in flux here . M . Varvayanis : As a past zoning board member, back when I was on there , I think if I had heard this case , we probably would have granted it assuming it was a zero setback because they have a mitigating circumstance . Now knowing that while we don 't know exactly where the right of way is , so it might be zero or greater, I don 't see where that makes your position any worse , especially if you define it as from the center line of the road . C. Hanley : Henry's back . H . Slater: Everywhere I write about it , I refer to it as zero or slightly less . We ® measured somewhere in the vicinity of 25 ' +/- 1 believe. S . Berg : Could it be done on contingent on Henry taking a final measurement and setting it . R . Marcus : In other words , you were to grant it to its current location , the specific distance to be added to the file by Henry at a later time and not be relocated . What you were just alluding to Stu , was that your concern in past grants has been that somebody doesn 't actually build closer than what you 've granted . W. Matyjas : This case in point , if we allow a zero setback where 15 is required , and the dispute is settled and it is in fact the edge of pavement, then we literally allow this sign to be relocated to the literal edge of pavement if we worded it that way . S . Berg : We can 't take any measurement from right of way because it's in dispute and you just can 't do that. C. Hanley : I ' m sensing the board is question out . Anybody have any more questions? Alright , then we' ll move on to the next hearing . ( 2 ) RICHARD AND TRACY MARISA 8 : 12 PM : Chairperson Hanley opened the hearing of Richard and Tracy Marisa of 16 Settlement Road , Ithaca , New York who are requesting variance relief to a home structure built at 10 . 3 ' to a Settlement Road turn around where 15 ' is required . Chair Hanley read the record into file . C . Hanley : We have no neighborhood reaction in the folder so , is there anything you wish to add to the application or stress to the board members ? R. Marisa : I think that the only other things are that there is a culvert indicated on the survey map and that is where Mr. Bush put the culvert in to the driveway entrance so , he put it in so it's where he wants it to be . You can see that it's also away from the end of the deeded turnaround . S . Berg : Can you show us where that culvert is on this diagram ? R. Marisa : There' s a survey, it' s here on this survey map ( approached the Board to point out on map ) so this dotted line is the culvert and when we purchased the property the paved part of the turnaround , the working part of it , was before that culvert so it wasn 't developed that far to put the culvert in and extend it beyond that. The working part , what ever that' s worth , of the snowplow turnaround gives even additional distance from where the structure is . S . Berg : The only thing in question with us right now is the distance to the porch and obviously the Town Highway Superintendent doesn 't have a concern with that so if he doesn 't have a concern with that then I 'm really not concerned . But he did have a concern with the future placement of the garage and that' s not an issue. R. Marcus : The only thing that I would suggest you do because it is indicated on the material the applicant submitted is affirmatively state in your decision that you are making no comment on the location of the garage as shown on the sketch map . N . LaMotte : I have some concerns about his future plans for a garage . That appears to be held on to what is clearly Town property. R. Marisa : No , actually the future garage would completely comply with current zoning ordinance and it' s not really at issue here . There is no garage there now and I would have to apply for a zoning or building permit to do that. R . Marcus : I think the thing that' s confusing is on the survey you were just referring to , there' s another set of dotted lines or dashed lines that isn 't identified . R. Marisa : That is the approximate area of the gravel driveway. So the double dashed line is the underground culvert and the area in front of that is where the current gravel driveway is . There 's no structure there . N . LaMotte : Does the culvert extend farther than these dotted lines ? R . Marisa : No , it does not . You ' ll notice there is a 15 ' Town owned strip between my property and the neighbor' s property to the left . This shaded area is what is owned by the town . This is currently where the driveway is and if you look at this other diagram , so that culvert is over here and the plan would be to have this be the driveway and this be the garage ( showing members on diagram ) . N . LaMotte : This culvert confuses me because , where does that drain to ? R. Marisa : The ground slopes down this way and that' s to keep the driveway O from washing out and then it drains down the hill this way on this Town owned access way . This was actually planned in the subdivision to be a 15 ' pedestrian access to the park , Eastern Heights Park . So if people in this subdivision wanted to walk, they could walk on the Town property to the park . W. Matyjas : As far as the owning and maintaining , who initially put the stone gravel driveway in from the edge of the road in? R. Marisa : From the edge of the road to where the culvert is , that was put in by the Town and originally all there was , was about this much of it developed and Jack Bush put in this culvert ; we purchased it and he installed it where he wanted it to be and then we extended the driveway up here . The ground drops off quite a bit here so we had to fill that in order put the driveway in . W. Matyjas : I guess from a maintenance standpoint , what do you plan on maintaining as driveway? Is that in any question with the Town as far as what is in fact driveway or road ? R. Marisa : What is marked there shaded is owned by the Town and they' re going to turn the plow around there and what happens with the snow happens with the snow. I have to dig out to get out of the driveway . W. Matyjas : But they specifically state that though , right as one of the concerns? R . Marisa : There ' s no requirement, for example , that the snow plow turn around so they might not move any snow in that driveway and I would have to shovel all the way out . C . Hanley : Just to complete the record , in the file now is a letter from November 1 st from the town engineers and surveyors indicating they have reviewed both the agenda for the meeting and Jack Bush 's October 18th letter and neither application requires further engineering review. N . LaMotte : There' s a statement in Jack' s letter that concerns me . Could I assume from the tone of this letter that you and Jack have had some difficulties over this ? R . Marisa : Not that I ' m aware of. I did ask him to come out and he offered to come out and we looked at the property before we decided where to put the driveway cut out and as I said , he put the culvert where he wanted it . He had a concern that it be on the left side because as he explained , the snow plow blade is fixed and will always push the snow to the right and so he didn 't want us to have a driveway cut out on the right side where the snow would be because he thought that would be contentious and I thought that was be a reasonable position . One consideration we were trying to have , assuming we can get this garage built , the idea was to have the door as far left as possible so it' s reasonable as to what might happen with the snow plow. I really don 't think there 's any contention . H . Slater: I would say that' s true . R. Marisa : When he came , he was clearly concerned because I think he has had problems like that in the past. I hope that by talking up front about how we were going to locate it , we probably would minimize any problems . H . Slater : Neither Mr. Marisa or Mr. Bush were involved in the initial engineering location , approval and dedication to this turnaround . They both came after the fact. I think that Jack' s concern is it was poorly designed and the Town shouldn 't have probably accepted it where it is . Being neither here nor there , that happen in 1994 1 believe long before either one had any involvement in this . I think he conceives this as poor design where it was put . C . Hanley : We will close that hearing and we will make a decision on the first one and come back to this one . **#irir* ***w,r,w****,►** �* ** w,w ** ** *ir frw *+<,►w* *,t*,F*,r*,t ***,t*** lr+,►-+x*****r*****+M**,t*,t,rtrk***,rtr,t**t*f+M 8 : 30 PM : Chair Hanley closed the hearing and the board began their deliberations for Alicia Alexander. A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR 40 DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Both in letters and in person , neighbors expressed support for the variance . The sign has existed in its current location for over 3 years . The sign meets all other zoning regulations . Board members made site visits and the applicant provided a photograph of the sign and it' s placement to those who had not . Based on these findings , we find not undesirable change . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . LaMotte 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 : Due to the trees , the curve of the road , the necessity of the visibility by traffic on the road , the current location of the sign is its only feasible placement. 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 : Given the indeterminate location of the right of way as a result of the pending law suit, you can 't evaluate whether it' s substantial or not . 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 DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : See A . 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 : The difficulty was self created . Motion : S . Berg Second : W . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT 1 NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 5 c — 12 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : ( 5 ) Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Walter Matyjas , Oers Kelemen , and Nick LaMotte NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : (0 ) DECISION . VARIANCE GRANTED WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT THE ZONING OFFICER TAKE A PRECISE MEASURMENT FROM THE EXISTING CENTER LINE OF THE PAVEMENT TO THE NEAREST PORTION OF THE EXISTING SIGN SO IT CAN BE STIPULATED IN THE ZONING VARIANCE APPROVAL . 239 1 & m County review exempt. 8 * 50 PM : Chair Hanley and the board began deliberations for Richard & Tracy Marisa . A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR • DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The setback of the structure from the apparent right of way of Settlement Road is sufficient and the only nonconformance results from the unique position of the Towns turnaround on this particular lot . The size and shape of the lots result in a limited building envelope . Motion : O . Kelemen Second : N . LaMotte In Favor: 3 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 house is located on the lot to avoid a substantial drop- off at the back and left side of the lot. The front door of the house is elevated above ground level , so some structure is necessary to allow access to the front door. The design of the house anticipates a front porch across the left side of the house ; removing part of the front porch closest to the turnaround would create an awkward appearance which would diminish the appearance and value of the property . Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . Kelemen In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The setback deficiency may be substantial but the portion of the improvements within the deficiency is minimal . Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . Kelemen Is In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 i 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 : Refer to "A" and additionally there appears to be no environmental impact resulting from the variance . The County Planning Department had no objections to the variance . Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . Kelemen In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The difficulty was self created . Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . Kelemen In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON =EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEOR SECTION 617 . 5(c ) — 12 Motion : Nick LaMotte — Grant request Second : Oers Kelemen VOTE : YES : ( 3 ) Charles Hanley , Oers Kelemen , and Nick La Motte NO : (0 ) ABSTAINED : (0 ) DECISION . VARIANCE GRANTED LIMITING THE RELIEF TO THE PORCH , NOT TO FUTURE STRUCTURES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED GARAGE . STATE OF NEW PORK : COUNTY OF TOMP.KINS TOWN OF DRVDEN In the matter of the appeal of` CERTIFICATE ALICIA ALEXANDER The property located at 136 HUNT HILL ROAD (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 76 . - 1 - 1 .2) I, C14ARLES 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 b such b � � pP Y Board on : NOVEMBER 12 , 2002 Dated : Dryden , New York Date: 72003 Charles Hanley ® NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 2002 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Alicia Alexander of 136 Hunt Hill 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 can Tuesday November 12 , 2002 with members present : Chairperson Charles Hanley, Oers Kelemen, Walter Matyjas, Stuart Berg and Nick LaMotte. AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : AL_EXANDER 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 : ® Both in letters and in person, neighbors expressed support for the variance. The sign has existed in its current location for over 3 years. The sign meets all other zoning regulations. Board members made site visits and the applicant provided a photograph of the sign and it ' s placement to those who had not . Based on these findings, we find not undesirable change . Motion : S . Berg Second : N . La Motte In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 Be IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFPI"S 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 : Due to the trees, the curve of the road, the necessity of the visibility by traffic on the road, the current location of the sign is its only feasible placement . Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favore, 5 Opposed : 0 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Given the indeterminate location of the right of way as a result of the pending law suit; you can ' t evaluate whether it ' s substantial or not. 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 DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : See A . ® 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 : The difficulty was self created . Motion : S . Berg Second : W. Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617 . 5(c) — 12 Motions Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : YES : (5 ) Charles Hanley, Stuart Berg, Walter Matyjas , Oers Kelemen , and Nick LaMotte NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) • • - i DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED WITH A REQIJIREM >rNT THAT THE ZONING OFFICER TAKE A PRECISE MEASUR. MENT FROM THE EXISTCNG CENTER LINE OF THE PAVEMENT TO THE NEAREST PORTION OF THE EXISTING SIGN SO I "J " CAN BE STIPULATr: 1) IN 7* 10113 ZONING VARIANCE APPROVAL . 239 1 & m County review exempt . • 1 r STATE; OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE RICHARD AND TRACY MARISA The property located at 16 SETTLEMENT ROAD (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 69 .-2-23 . 34) 11 CHAR.LES HANLEY, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure gof such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on : NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Dated : Dryden , New York Date : 12003 Charles Hanley ® NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY NOVEMBER 12 , 2002 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Richard and Tracy Marisa of 16 Settlement 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 November 12 , 2002 with members present : Chairperson Charles Hanley, Oers Kelemcn , Walter Matyjas, Stuart Berg and Nick LaMotte. AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : M RI 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 : 40 The setback of the structure from the apparent right of way of Settlement Road is sufficient and the only nonconformance results from the unique position of the Towns turnaround on this particular lot. The size and shape of the lots result in a limited building envelope. Motion : O. Kelemen Second : N . La Motte In Favor : 3 Excused : 2 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 house is located on the lot to avoid a substantial drop-off at the back and left side of the lot. The front door of the house is elevated above ground level , so some structure is necessary to • allow access to the front door. The design of the house anticipates y } a front porch across the left side of the house; removing part of the ® front porch closest to the turnaround would create an awkward appearance which would diminish the appearance and value of the property. Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . K.elemen In Favor: 3 Excused : 2 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The setback deficiency may be substantial but the portion of the improvements within the deficiency is minimal . Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O. Kelemen In Favor : 3 Excused : 2 D. IN CONSIDER.TNG 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 : Refer to "A " and additionally there appears to be no environmental impact resulting from the variance. The County Planning Department had no objections to the variance. Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . Kelemen In Favor: 3 Excused : 2 E , IN CONSIDERING WHETHER 'THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED, THE "ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The difficulty was self created . Motion : N . LaMotte Second : O . Kelemen In Favor: 3 Excused : 2 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON- EXEMPT' ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION f 17, 5(c) — 12 c i OMotion : dick LaMotte — Grant request Second : Oers Kelemcn vo,rE : YES : (3) Charles Hanley, Oers Kelemen, and Nick La Motte NO : (0) EXCUSED : (2) Stuart Berg and Walter Matyjas DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED LIMITING OrHE REL1E� F TO THE PORCH , No'r TO FUTURE STRUCTURES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED GARAGE .