Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-01 ` w TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 1 , 2003 AGENDA : ( 1 ) Roger and Darla Eggleston MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Walter Matyjas , Nick LaMotte , Oers Keleman , David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull ALSO PRESENT: Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) Roger Eggleston LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus ( 1 ) ROGER & DARLA EGGLESTON 7 : 35 PM : Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Roger and Darla Eggleston of 1963 Peruville Road , Freeville who are requesting a structure setback variance relief for a proposed property line between them and Richard Sovocool at 1965 Peruville Road . This is requesting variance to section 754 . 2 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . ® R . Marcus : Introduced himself to the new board members and vice versa . W. Matyjas : Read the applicants appeal presentation . O. Keleman : The yellow metal building and the barn are two different structures , correct? R . Eggleston : What it is , Dad built the yellow barn and he didn 't go far enough over from the existing barn , the one that I ' m buying . On the back corner of it is eight feet. O. Keleman : The barn or the yellow building ? R . Eggleston : The barn . O . Keleman : Okay, the yellow building , is that what you refer to as the garage elsewhere in the documents ? There 's reference made to a garage . R . Eggleston : That has nothing to do with this . H . Slater: Why don 't you show them on the site map what is what ( Mr. Eggleston approached the board to point out). R . Eggleston : This barn here is the one that needs the variance for, this building over here is what I call the garage . O . Keleman : The dividing line is where ? R . Eggleston : It's going to be one whole piece when we buy this property; we 're buying it all together. We ' re buying it from Raymond . (1J O . Keleman : So you ' re buying this property? R . Eggleston : Right and this right here is where they surveyed it . We tried Sto make it easy so it would be a straight shot . We never { knew we had to be 1 5 ' from that little car port or what ever you want to call it on the end of that building there . W. Matyrjas : But for the record , this was labeled barn on the survey, correct? R. Eggleston : Right and the other building here is the garage - Q . eleman : Now this is his property over here?. R . Eggleston : Yes , R . Marcus : he currently owns all of this together that is together, right? R . Eggleston : No , this barn here , this property line . ( Showing the board what he talking about) This here is dividing this property. R . Marcus : Fight now, Richard Sovocool owns all of this . R . Eggleston : No , this over here belongs to Karen Sovocool just past the Sign . R. Marcus : The thing that confuses me is this says the remaining lands of Richard Sovocool and it's got these arrows going back here and up here so , he doesn ' t own where the yellow metal building 1 R, Eggleston : No , that belongs to Raymond . H . Slater: Well , there is actually two parcels on this survey. ( Showing the board what he is speaking of) This is Raymond 's property and this then would have been all the property of Richard Sovocool which you intend to buy this chunk here which makes this the remaining property of Richard Sovocool . R . Marcus : Fight as of now, Richard still owns the property . You haven 't actually gone ahead and bought anything ye# R . Eggleston : No , it ' s pending on Richard ' s part, If he doesn 't get the variance , we've got to have it re-surveyed and have the line moved out a couple more feet. W. Matyjas : Is there anything else you world like to tell us ? State your name for the record . R. Eggleston : Roger Eggleston , WM Matyrjas : You don ' t have anything else to add at this point I assume "? I 'd like to open it up to the board members for any questions or comments , O. Keleman : On this different document , I don ' t know what page it is , it indicates at the bottom , it' s the letter addressed to Roger and Darla Eggleston , it says , " . . . it may be , there does exist 25' from the garage , . , " , and on the survey , was that ever determined if it was 25 or 18 . 93 ? H . dater : The survey , if you look at the original survey , they mysteriously don 't list that. There ' s two garages , garage one and garage two _ This is the problem from here to here ( showing Mr. Keleman ) they mysteriously don 't give you this dimension so by scale I determined that I didn 't believe it was equal to or greater than 25' , but giving the benefit of the doubt , it could simply be a number that's ornitted . When they place these things , they don 't necessarily place there exactly where they belong and that's generally why they' N give you dimension . For all I know this scale is immaterial and there might actually be 5' there so I had suggested they determine whether or not there was and I have not heard from anybody. R. Eggleston : There is not 251 . 0. Keleman : How much would you say there is ? R. Eggleston : I think it was 15' and inches . When we had him survey it , told hirn I was trying to make a straight shot and I never thought anything about it being 25 ' or 1 5' , We were just trying to male it so it was easy to survey. W. Matyrjas : Are any of these buildings moveable` R . Eggleston : No , . Keleman : I know the barn isn 't , but the metal building isn 't? R . Eggleston : fro _ Where the variance is , it' s just a three sided lean-to that could be tore down but nobody wants it tore down . R . Marcus : The metal building is in compliance with the side yard setback. It' s just the back corner of the barn that' s at 8 . 18 ' and then this garage up to the front . W. Matyjas : And those are both created by the subdivision line that we see . Any comments or questions? D . Sprout : They both need 5' ? R . Marcus : No , the garage needs 25 because technically from the garage to that line would be considered a rear line and the setback from the rear line is 253 , but the bam only needs 15 because that would be considered a side yard setback - W. Matyjas : That line makes a "` " shape , if that was a straighter line , at what point would the side lot become a rear lot? R. Marcus ; That ' s a good question , Henry , does your zoning law define the rear? H . Slater: No , if it was equal to or greater than , and I ' ll use the analogy that they use when is a roof a roof and when is it a wall . When it' s equal to or less than 45 degrees , it' s a roof_ When it ' s equal to or greater than 45 degrees , it's a wall . R. Marcus : it' s a fair analogy , there are a lot of zoning laws and the Town of Ithaca defines what a rear line is by it' s relationship to the road that the parcel has frontage on which can get confusing if you have more than one road , but it's the most common way to define a rear line as the line that' s most closely parallel to the road that the lot has frontage on . Of course that could be broken up into more than one line but without a definition it is a little bit unclear. W. Matyrjas : There is somewhere further south there ' s a greater rear line . R . Eggleston : But the line you are talking about would be on Richard 's _ 0 . Keleman : The garage that we' re talking about now is a lean-to or shed type building . R . Eggleston ; It' s a two sided . 0 . Keleman : And it's sort of tumbling down ? R , Eggleston ; No , it's in good shape ; they just park the car of it to keep the snow and rain off it , O . Keleman : Fundy , is it possible to grant a variance for the existing structure not to be replaced by any subsequent? R. Marcus : Sure , it' s a condition you can put on it . D . Sprout: But we ' re only talking about the barn on this , right? O . Keleman : The garage. D . Sprout ; No , isn 't this only about the bank , this hearing ? The one labeled barn" H . Slater : I have not included the second potential violation in this particular review but you might determine it' s a side lot line and it doesn 't matter. 0. Keleman : The only reason I brought up the barn is because it ' s described as a second possible part. H . Slater: You are correct ; I considered it to be a problern with the Sovocool property and not the Eggleston property because there is a property I i n e between the two . There are two different parcels . R. Marcus : In other words , the violating structure would be on the Sovocool property . H . Slater; In my opinion , that would be a second application _ W. Mat jas : Looking at the survey map , the barn which is metal building , just to keep that with the 8 . 18 ' , That' s the relief being sought today . Just looking at the other dimensions they are 153 and 15 , 5 , as far as moving the line or snaking it less than 90 , that' s not an option in this case , is it'd R. Eggleston : No , there 's not enough room in between the two buildings to do it. W. Matyjas : So you 've got about 23124 so there ' s not enough . Somebody needs a variance at the end of the day to have a subdivision line go between the barn and the metal building . R . Marcus : The only other thing you want to get in the record before we close the public hearing I Sthat there are no other member of the public present and there is no other commentary in the file from any other members of the public. N . LaMotte : How do we address this , Randy , when we don 't know haw much relief is needed ? R. Marcus : Well , what Henry pointed out is what I sort of missed with taking a quick look at this is that you can 't actually grant that variance because it ' s not been requested and it's really a procedural problem you don 't having notices gone to anyone about that variance being requested , Not to suggest that ky anyone would have showed up for it but you can 't use that as a basis for skipping over the fequired procedure . I think may be able to do away with that pretty quickly though . Henry , remind me what's the application fee for variance requests ? H . Slater: $ 50 , 00 plus $ 5 . 00 for a zoning plat to reject. R . Marcus : So as far as that garage goes , Mr, Richard Sovoccol will be on the hook for $75 . 00 lust to get the variance plus however much of his time he ' s going to have to invest: in submitting the request and showing up for the next meeting _ H . Slater : He had submitted an application but not in time for tonight, R . Marcus : Versus , you mentioned the surveyor wanted 185 to move that line so the real additional cost to doing the survey would be in the neighborhood of $ 100 _ You might want to consider having that lime moved a Jittle . The next zoning board meeting would be May 6u' so you ' re Iook [ng at another five weeks . W. atyjas : Your variance tonight because of the distance of the two buildings is impossible physically of removing a building _ As noted , there is no other public response . Read into the record the letter dated 3/ 1 /03 from the Department of Planning . Also read T . G . Miller letter into the record _ Is there anything else? We will close the public hearing . 8 : 08 PME Chair Matyjas closed the public hearing and the board began their deliberations for Roger and Darla Eggleston _ 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 nonconforming building is an existing building , The variance requested will allow for a change in ownership , but no change in the physical characteristic of the subject property . Motion : N _ LaMotte Second : 0 . I eleman In Favor: 5Opposed : 0 B . IN CONSIDERJNG 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 A FOLLOWS : Given the desire to subdivide the property and the fact that the subject structure and the adjacent property structure provide less than 0 ' of separation , it is physically impossible to provide the rewired sideyard setback without a variance , for either or both properties . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Although the relief requested is substantial , it only pertains to one corner of the building , with the majority of the building in compliance . Motion : N _ LaMotte Second : Sr Trumbull 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 : o , there are no physical changes Motion : O . Keleman Second : D . Sprout 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 , however see (A ) above , J Motion : S . Trumbull Second : 0 _ Ieleman In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VALIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / AIONmEXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION fil7 , 5( c) -- 12 & 11 Motion : Nick LaMotte - Grant request Second : Stephen Trumbull VOTE : YES : ( 5 ) Walter Matyjas , Nick LaMotte , Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout IN 0 : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : (0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT DELIVERS A NEWSUBDIVISION MAP THAT INDICATES NO NEED FOR ANY OTHER VARIANCES . l: ,rA ,rF OF NEW TT O UNT l OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter oi' the appal of CE.C2.'11FICATE ROGER AND DARLA EGGLESTON The property located al 1.963 Peruville Road (Town of Dryden Tax Maur Parcel No . 241wI - 1 , 2) I, WA.L TER M TYJA . C hairperson of the Town of Dryden ZON IN BOARD 0 R APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to R u I c b of the Rules of Procedure of' such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on - APRIL I , 200 Dated : Dryden , New York Date: , 2003 Walter Matyjas i i { y NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY APR ] L 1 . 2003 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Richard and Darla Eggleston of 1963 Peruvillc Itoad , who were asking for relief from Article 15 Section 7 54 , 2 of the Town of .Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals corn Tuesday April 1 , 2003 with members presernt : Chairperson Walter kktatyjas, Niek La lotte, Oers Keleinan , David Sprout and Stephen Tru nbul1 . AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : E iGl-rESTON A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER Al,, UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED T l THE CHARACTER OF TIME NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETI MENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED B GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPF_ ALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The nonconforming building is an existing building- The variance requested will allow for a change in ownership, but no change in the physical characteristic of the subject property - Motion : - La oi [e Second : O . Keleman In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 B. ITS CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENE. FJTS SOUGHT BY THE PPL1C NT CAN BE AGHJE.VED 13Y SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE_ FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FITNIDS A S FOLLOWS : Given the desire to subdivide the property and the fact that the subject structure and the adjacent propeily structure provide less than 0 ' of separation .. it is physically impossible to provide the required sideyai-d setback without a varictrice. for either or both Properties , Motion : S . Trumbull eeorkd : D. Sprout In Favor; 5 Opposed : 0 Ca IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED UESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ; Altho4Igh the relief requested is substantial , it only Pertains to one corner of (lie building , with the majority of the building in c ompli alwe, Motiono. N . LaMotte Second : S . Trumbull In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 O. IN GONSIDERM WAETKER. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE, EFFECT OR IMPACT" ON THE, PHYSICAL OR 'ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FNT THE NKETGHBORHOOD OR. DISTRICT, THE ZOi ING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No , there are no physical changes Mntio 0- Keleman Second : D - Sprout In Favor , 5 Opposed : 0 E , IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DTFFI ULTY WAS SELFw CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS . The difficulty was self-created , however see ( A ) above - Motion : S . 'Trumbull Second : O - Kelernan In Favor: 5 Oppowd : 0 THIS VARIANCE 4S AN EXEMPT I NON -EXEM prF ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617.5 (c) — 12 &. 13 Motion : Nliok LaMolte — Grant request Second : Stephen Trumbull VOTE . YES : {5) Walter M.atyjas , 'C lick LaMotte, Oers Keleinan , Stephen Trumbull avid David Sprout NOm ( 0) ABSTAINED .# (0) L t'� DECISION . VARI ANC E G RANTED WITH COND ITION THAT THE APP1, IC: ANT DEL.I'V.F.RS A -NEW SUB DIVI ION MAP THAT j FNDIGATES NO NEEr D FOR ANY OTHER VARJANICES . i I