Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-06 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 6 , 2003 AGENDA : ( 1 ) John and Polly Miner (2) Comelius Drost MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull ALSO PRESENT: Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) John Miner, Brook Greenhouse — Cayuga Country Homes , Applicant ( 2 ) Mrs . Drost , Lawrence Drost LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus ( 1 ) JOHN AND POLLY MINER 7 : 35 PM : Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of John and Polly Miner of 218 Irish Settlement Road , Freeville who are requesting permission to construct a residential structure at 15 Settlement Road , Ithaca . This is requesting variance to ® section 703 . 1 & . 2 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice , application and remainder of the file into the record and asked Mr. Miner or Mr. Greenhouse if there was anything he wanted to add . J . Miner : I think that covers it well . We ' re building a ranch house similar to those in the neighborhood with an attached garage . It' s not an exceptionally large house but its a little more space than the lot allows . W. Matyjas : With that I ' ll open it up to the board for questions or comments . R. Marcus : The only thing that I wanted to put in the record just by way of full disclosure is I don 't have any relationship with the Miners , I do represent Cayuga Country Homes but they are not the applicant so it' s not a direct conflict . O . Keleman : This is just a curious question . John , could you tell me what this word is ? It says H2O which I assume is a creek , there' s the driveway and then there 's something to the right of that . J . Miner: Yes , that's the sewer hookup . B. Greenhouse : I think the drawing you are looking at some of the lines didn 't get photocopied due to the copy machine . I printed it color and the dotted lines are the setbacks based on the original interpretation . O. Keleman : So that truly shows us the overlaps . 1 ' 1 (Al on B . Greenhouse : Flight , W, Keleman : Again , some of the color, I thinly it ' s light blue shows the radius _ On the black and white copy we have an inner are that is a 50 ' radius, is that the actual property line or edge of right-of-way ? B . Greenhouse : Well , no . Basically if you read that ordinance this isn 't like a corner lot like the one to the left hand side which is a traditional corner lot so we whet were just trying to show is how it' s very easy to stay within a 50 ' radius which would be a secondary road setback _ That' s all that is representing with that 50' are and then the dotted line would be the 70 ' mark _ This is drawn by surveyor and then the dotted lines out by the perimeter of the setback , what you can 't see ; next to the footage or dimension notes is where the actual property boundaries are . The lot is rectangular with a notch taken out of it , there 's no arc in the lot , it ' s just an imaginary line , O . Kelemaw Are there any comments by neighbors ' W. Matyjas : No , I didn 't see any other than T . G . Miller and the County . Is there any other written requests? H . Slater: No . W. Mat jas : There 's no one else to speak on this ? Any other questions' I just have one talking about the usable portion of the lot, I assume that moans you can 't move the house back or turn It ? It looks like if you turn it 80 or 90 degrees it would fit but then the garage doesn ' t line up with the driveway , is that correct? B . Greenhouse : Well , pretty much what happens is this lot slopes as you ' re looking at this particular drawing ( showing the board members which drawing ) it has a compound slope , it slopes from the left down to the right and then it slopes fronn the back to the front so it creates a lot of restrictions _ We ' re just sort of making everything fit and work , I guess it might be possible to create like a narrow two story style home with a garage in front but with a design like that you would probably have to go , frorn the garage to the main floor you ' d have to go about two-thirds of a flight of stairs . It's not the design our customer is interested in but just to fully answer your question which is more of a southern style design you don 't really see in this area and then actually when we were preparing this paperwork , we were presenting John and his wife with the concept of flipping the house so the garage is on the other side which we thought might have helped in Borne ways with certain things . In the end it probably wouldn 't and more importantly , we can 't even do it because of the Highway Department _ W. Matyjas : To avoid the turn around . B. Greenhouse : So , pretty much what we did when we came up with this is we were trying to come up with a reasonable scenario to what we thought would happen based on the restrictions that were understood and what may happen in the end is we may find ourselves moving the house a little bit further back from the main road but that' s about it. It seems that no matter what we ' re going to be impacting on some of these setbacks . It' s a pretty narrow lot , that' s the biggest problem but that arc is what really makes it very hard . I don 't know if it was very clear but I think I totally understand the interpretation , I just think that 701 , I don 't really think that gains what the intention of the corner lot definition . I don 't see how that applies here but it's the closest interpretation of the zoning ordinance so it' s reasonable to talk about this 70 . That really cuts away a huge chunk of the usable space . W. Matyjas : This is a ranch home right? B . Greenhouse : Yes . J . Miner: The house itself is 1500 square feet . W. Matyjas : Stated there were other responses from T . G . Miller and the Tompkins County Department of Planning and read the letters into the record and added them to . the file . R . Marcus : On the floor plan of the house , it looks like the living area does not extend behind the garage? J . Miner: The garage sits in a notch so there is some living area behind the garage . R. Marcus : And on the sketch it seems the house extends further back . I ' m just wondering if that part of the house is actually in the floor plan . J . Miner: The garage itself extends to that area , its square . O . Keleman : But it' s the home that shows that it' s over the line but does the house indeed to that full dimension ? B . Greenhouse : The drawing is not quite right but I think what the goal is , what we anticipate happening is for us try and tilt the house such that the garage actually would be in the back so it would rotate clockwise so that the edge of the garage is almost undoubtedly going to cross over that property line . J . Miner: We ' re also trying to accommodate a walk out basement on what would be the south end ; just trying to create more space . R. Marcus : My goal is just to be sure when the board considers its decision its got the correct number of feet of relief because if the house is going to be pivoted clockwise then the base at the right hand closer is going to be coming closer to the road and we just want to be sure you ' re given adequate relief. I ' m just looking back on your application , is the request so that you can bring the house as close as 50 ' in radius to the ® center line ; essentially is that the goal ? B . Greenhouse : Yes and since this was drawn up , we have had the opportunity to clear the land which it's very different when you can walk around cleared lot than you can a wooded lot . think that what we ' re going to find is that 50 ' is not going to be as critical as it was originally. R. Marcus : Because you ' re going to be able to pull the house back into the lot further. B . Greenhouse : That' s right . That's what we ' re pretty sure is going to happen . R . Marcus : So you ' re asking for the 50 ' as an outside limit . B . Greenhouse : Generally speaking for construction purposes and the Miner' s purposes , the further back from the road the house is the more it helps . It' s hard also because we' re working on such a tiny scale with all these drawings , that's why we had to go through the trouble and expense of having a surveyor do this for us . When we drew this up , we didn 't have some of the knowledge we have today so I think it' s least likely we will be closer than 50 ' but I felt that when I was reading the zoning ordinance I thought the side yards is just a number that absolutely specific to this particular project but the radius is just we were trying to demonstrate within the body of the zoning ordinance really isn 't an unreasonable request . 1 think within the writing of the zoning for the Town you could justify that so rather than even trying to figure out if it' s 56 or 54 feet , this is reasonable request . R. Marcus : It won 't be nearer than 50 . B . Greenhouse : No , W. Matyjas : I guess the same is true on the side lot , the side yard setback , you ' re looking for a 7 ' variance ; you ' re saying that at no point that structure won 't get closer than 8 ' ? B . Greenhouse : That's correct , we' re trying to count roof overhangs , we weren 't really clear as every municipality is a little bit different how that gets interpreted and I didn 't catch that in the ordinance . R. Marcus : Henry , the Town would consider anything as . . . H . Slater : The way it reads it leads you to believe it' s the foundation . There 's certainly no specification or verbiage about roof overhangs , cornices or anything of that nature . It speaks to the building or where it's attached to the ground or whatever is attached to the ground so it tends to lead you to believe that it' s to the foundation . It 's not specific; you ' ve got to read into it a little bit . R. Marcus : But that' s how you 've interpreted it on a regular basis ? H . Slater : Absolutely . ' I W. Matyjas : It could be used as the foot print of the building . O. Keleman : How can the pump describe the variance he ' s seeking and how can we describe the variance granted , if granted , if we don 't know where this house is going to be ? It seems like it's going to shift around . R. Marcus : Well , I think you 've done this before where you 've granted up to a certain limit. W. Matyjas : That's why I want to clarify the size , is it 7' of relief up to 8 ' from the side ? J . Miner: It's 7 ' of relief leaving at least 8 ' . R . Marcus : No closer than 8 ' . 1 guess the last question would be if the side yard variance is being requested as 7 ' , you say in the description per side , so it is the case that you ' re looking to be no closer than 8 ' to the line on either the south or the north side ? I just want to be clear, it's not that you need a total of 7 ' ; you want 7 ' on either side? J . Miner: Correct , and basically we ' re talking corner to corner is what impacts , it' s not like there' s a 28 ' x7 ' building section , it's just that corner is what we ' re essentially anticipating . B . Greenhouse : One thing that I 've learned since this application that may be of interest is on the northern side there are two building sites , I think one is identified as Beroni on the paperwork and the other is Baker Miller and Baker Miller is in the process of changing hands . The Beroni site is already built , it' s a substantial distance away and I can 't really imagine how the placement of this particular home would have any impact what so ever but what is really interesting is the other undeveloped site , which is the comer lot to the north , there is a sewer line for reasons I don 't quite understand , to service the Beroni residence that doesn 't cross even close to the property boundary. It goes well within the northern lot by , would estimate between 10 and 18 feet and what that means is that house is unusually has another restriction , it has to be pushed that much further away from the Miners home and also if we ' re lucky enough to get the project , that house , the way it' s intended to be right now intends to be a significant distance away on the portion of Settlement Road and favoring that as a front yard . I guess the point is all this stuff can 't really impact anyone . W. Matyjas : Is that the one in the description , in the write- up under section three it says , " Is the requested variance substantial ?" It says , " . . . Lot 41 is downhill and may require similar variances for similar reasons . " B . Greenhouse : We ' re talking about lot 44 . W. Matyjas : Significant road frontage . • • , , it Be Greenhouse : 43 is existing and 41 , actually you can see it on the survey ® map it' s 20 ' , okay, the sewer line is 20' from the Miners property line so even if that homeowner chose Settlement Road as their front yard their side yard is going to be more than 20' to get away from the sewer line . W. Matyjas : Any more questions or final comments ? Okay with that we ' ll close the hearing at this time . Closed public hearing at 8 : 04 pm , ( 2 ) CORNELIUS DROST 8005 PM : Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Cornelius Drost who is requesting permission to develop a commercial lot at 15 Royal Road , Ithaca . This is requesting variance to section 1206 . 5 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance , Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice , application and remainder of the file into the record and asked if there was I anyone present for this hearing and had anything to add . M . Droste I ' m Mrs . Drost his wife . L . Droste I ' m Lawrence Drost his son . It seems like it was all pretty well covered and we'd just like to emphasize that it would be a minor variance . If you work out the numbers , it works out to 20 . 5 % smaller than the 100 ' feet required . It's a minor variance and again this will let it be developed consistent with its new MA zoning . If this isn 't given as is it is a significant hardship on Mr. Drost . W. Matyjas : At this point I ' ll open it up to the board for questions . S . Trumbull : Yes , this RB1 , what did that mean ? H . Slater: Explained the different zoning types. R . Marcus : Walt , again just for the record , I do have to the disclosure of my firm representing the applicants for many years . I personally haven 't done any work for them for quite a few years . Technically I would be in directly conflicted out of advising the board on this . If the applicant consents of this can respond to your questions . W. Matyjas : I drove4by the site and it seems towards the Hanshaw Road it' s kind of a swampier area and it was kind of hard to see where your lot line started . M . Droste That's the lot next to it. W. Matyjas : Is it safe to say on this lot there would no swamp or cattails ? H . Slater : Those type of issues would be specifically addressed during any site plan review. You have to remember any use proposed in a MA zoning district is a use permitted strictly by site plan review and those issues are being addressed . The Army Corps of Engineers are involved , the DEC and our Town engineering department is involved . • i W. Matyjas : I didn 't know from the area issue if that was useable . So the only relief is for the road frontage ? The area is not in questions? H . Slater: That' s correct. W. Matyjas : Since there isn 't anyone else present, Henry is there any written responses? H . Slater: No . W. Matyjas : Read into the record a letter from T. G. Miller dated4/24/03 and a letter from the T C. Dept. of Planning dated 4122103, Are there any final comments? (There were none ) I will close the hearing at 8 : 20 PM . *wk .* *s +k,r+rR+r* w* ***++r♦ awxr **�*#,air***�****,►+nrrtw gat,tlrtYrtYt4Ar**#*+i+rwir* +k,t** *,r +ww .vk ,r* �#tt♦+•*,r*,tf**• 8 : 22 PM : Chair Matyjas closed the - public hearing and the board began their deliberations for Cornelius Drost. 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 : Given that all lots in the Royal Road neighborhood are currently zoned in MA and used for MA purposes , it is consistent with that use and no detriment will occur. Motion : O . Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor : 4 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 : No . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : O . Keleman In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : • r Although the road frontage shortage is substantial , there are no visual or practical deleterious effects . Motion : O . Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : See "A" above . Motion : D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No , it was the result of a recent re-zoning Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION (SEAR was done by Town Board ) . Motion : Stephen Trumbull — Adopt Town Board 's SEQR review Second : Oers Keleman VOTE : YES : (4 ) Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : (0 ) Motion : Oers Keleman — Grant request Second : David Sprout VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) ® DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED . ® www*w#wrwwwww,rw,rw,r*,rw,rw,twwwsrwwwww,rwww*w+ w�rwww*w*wir,r+ .rw,ryr,e .ww,rwww,wwww,rw,rwrwww*wwwww�www*w*www 8 :46 PM Chair Matyjas and the board began their deliberations for John and Polly Miner. 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 : This neighborhood has small lots , several of which have area variances to permit appealing home placement and design . Furthermore , due to topography and the shape of lot , sitting of the home is limited . Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes . The most feasible ways to conform would be to construct an extremely small home , a home without a garage or a home with a different orientation and extreme foundation exposure . While these ideas might result in conformance with most of the setback requirements , they would result in a home that does not conform in the neighborhood . In addition , this building lot has a complicated compound slope and Highway Superintendent Jack Bush told the applicant they can not locate their driveway off of the turnaround , due to plowing concerns , which results in it being impractical to conform . e Motion : O . Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Although the relief requested is substantial ( 7 ' of 15 ' side setback and 20 ' of 70 ' front yard setback) only a portion of the home requires relief due to the angled orientation . Due to the turn around area creating an irregular shaped lot the house will actually be set back further from the road than conforming neighboring homes . Motion : O . Keleman Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : See "A" and "C" above . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes , but it will conform with the neighborhood as proposed . Motion : O . Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ! NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617 . 5 (c ) — 12 & 13 Motion : Stephen Trumbull — Grant request Second : David Sprout ® VOTE : YES : ( 4 ) Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull ® and David Sprout NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED . ® TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 6 , 2002 AGENDA : ( 1 ) John and Jerri Behler ( 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 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 M 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 line 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 . Manley . 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 paint , and then our recommendation doesn 't include hat we have approved or are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Does anybody fellow 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 l ' rn 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 riot going overboard for other kinds of businesses . N . La Motte : 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 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 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 . S . Berg : But would you estimate it was about 15' from the center of the road ? Jo . 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 an arraignment here . C . Hanley : What we will do is go ahead and hear the other two applicants and then get hack to yours so you can either stay and wait for that or you can call Henry in the morning , ( ) John and Pura Teeter C . Manley : 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 24 Settlement Road , Ithaca , It is for a modular home with attached garage . Chair Hanley opened the floor to M r- 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 stare out where the house is going to be so everybody can view it and see if they disapprove of it . One miner change that I have done from what the site plan there is I 've moved the setback from the road back to b ' . O . 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 I have ' 4 " from the required setback from the road and I 've moved the house back into the lot so that will be ' and that's just so that I won 't ever have problems in the future if I want to do something to the perch I won 't have to came back and have another hearing . That's the only issue - I ' d Ile to get approval as soon a$ possible 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 . N . La IVlotte : 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 Marne the roof on the house is already set . Sr Berg : Is the garage pre- manufactured ? J . Teeter ; No _ Fight now , the way that the house is planned on being constructed , the fireail between the house and the garage is going to be constructed on that side of the house . N . La Nlotte : 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 an 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 ' 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 6' 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 7 ' from the center of the road ? J . Teeter, Approximate width of the road is 60 ; 11rn 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 lava is written from the center of the road , is that correct`? H . Slater: Correct , the road is a 6G' road bed , so 0 ' of it is on your side of the road , so if he' s 0 ' and 45 ' , he 's 75 ' from the center_ J . Teeter: Kevin told me that I only needed to be 74" 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 maize decisions on these cases 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? . Henley : I don 't think so , wrw� *� ** ** w, w+ ** *+*w xw �+*+#+ *vxw*+t+#*,rwsw�+t+#•*w ww *� *+ ts ♦w ww ** *t+•w,e w***+#wYrwr.w+ +*+�•*YrMrwk ( ) Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas . Hanley : Chair Hanley opened the hearing for Walter and Mary Arta latyjas ' 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. atyjas : I don 't thinly you missed anything , Basically the history is there . Lime I said in the write ups We celebrated our ten year anniversary , so it was about nine ear ago a 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 bought the lot next to them , again to protect therm , 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 luck yard . To construct a home and access so l' 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 ? 0 . l element Walter , what lot is it that you own already'? 1+V _ Matyjas : 14 Bridle Lane ; 2 . 6 where attached parcel 47- 1 -25 . 1g , that' s the one with the small pond and the dyke down there , 0 . Kelernen : And your home is on that iot? W . atylas : Correct, that is my current residerice , 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 ? W _ Matyjas . No , not the 10 ' greater parcel . There ' s approximately 4 acres that would go to 16 Bridle Lane , or lot M _ As far as my particular residence , I ' ll be looking to sell that house and build a new house , . Berg : The lot 16 Bridle Lane that trapezoidal area outlined in yellow is that what's being added ' J . Bugliari : I can spear 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 it actually comes right down into the backside . Icy house actually turns and faces out towards the northwest area and when I knew Wait was looking at that area , because we knew them 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 I 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 - . Berg ; This isn 't subdividing a previous subdivision ? J _ Bugliari : It ' s a boundary area . H , Slater: Boundary Iinel lot line adjustment , , 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 , lye ' 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 . . Berg : I' sn '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 aria on this hill - So , we ' re basically buying where the cul-de-sac and road would have went , using that roadway as our driveway and therefore , that ' s why there' s only 60 ' of frontage , It ' s the termination of the stub that they put in either phase 1 or phase 2r I ' m excluding the westerly portion that will be going to Bugliari at approximately 4 acres under a boundary line agreernentladju trnent. 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 , - 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 l 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 - S . Berg ; Your own home would be up there and the access would be here ? W- matyjasq Going up that strip - . Berg : This would not be a road ; it would be your driveway ? W, Matyjas : Yes , 0 . #{element The roughly one acre area you ' re talking about that ' s behind tax parcel 25A 31 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 . 0 . I elemen : 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 1 ' 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 : 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 clear 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, Mthe 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 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 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 ' 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 there 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 mane 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 se 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 gefting a variance is to be free of some restriction . _ Hanley: But the fact that there was a subdivision already, he' d still have to come #pack 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 , Welter 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 . _ Hanle} : 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. Denning : My name is Deming at 10 Bridle Lane _ I 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 room and roll club in there but other than that , I would be supportive . Hanley: Let the record show if it weren 't for Mr, Denning , I ' d be driving a cab in Brooklyn right now _ D _ Smith : Davin 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 Harfey Bieber and I live on Crystal Drive and m 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 ' 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 . 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 ? i 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 s i 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 A 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 , Matjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 Ca IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQ JE TED 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 EFFECTOR 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 DIFFICULT' WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Absolutely was self created . Motion : S . Berg Second : O _ telernen In Favor: 6 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT I NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 17. 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 5 ' 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 LaMotte NO : ( 0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED D . 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 PROPEF T [ ES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING 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 Dome on this narrow lot minimizes the effect of this variance . Motion : S . Berg Second ; W. Matyjas 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 Co 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 ONMENTAL 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 can the neighborhood . Motion : Sr Berg Second : W . Matyjas In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERINGWHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS ; Yes , the difficulty was self created . Motion : N . La Matte Second : _ Matyjas In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT I NON - EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 5 (c ) — 1 Motion : Stuart Berg — Grant request Second : Nick LaMotte VOTE : ICES : ( 5 ) Charles Hanley, Stuart Bert, Oers Kelemen , Walter Mat las and Nick LaMotte N0 : (0 ) ABSTAINED : ( 0 ) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED *+ ** +* ****** ** ww w* *t** +* +*#x* rw*wxrw*wtwt+t+#***x*xw 0 w* ** *w tw t+t+f+#* ,rw C . Hanley : The board began deliberations for Walter and Mary Ann Matyjas , A . INCONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED B 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 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 : All adjoining properties are developed , and this is the only method to achieve the desired results . Motion : S . Berg Second : O . Kelemen In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS i 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 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 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 JOHN AND POLLY MINER The property located at 1. 5 Settlement Road (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 69 . -2-23 .42 ) 1 , WALTER MATYJAS , 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 : N[AY 6, 2003 Dated : Dryden , New York Date: 42003 Walter Matyjas • NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY MAY 69 2003 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by John and Polly Miner of 218 Irish Settlement Road , who were asking for relief fi-om Article 15 Section 703 . 1 & 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance. Said hearing was duly conducted by the "Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday May 6, 2003 with members present : Chairperson Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman , David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull . AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : MINER 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 : This neighborhood has small lots, several of which have area variances to permit appealing home placement and design . Furthennore, due to topography and the shape of lot , siting of the home is limited . Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull In Favor : 4 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 : Yes . The most feasible ways to conform would be to construct an extremely small home, a home without a garage or a home with a different orientation and extreme foundation exposure. While these ideas might result in conformance with most of the setback requirements , they would result in a home that does not conform in • the neighborhood . In addition , this building lot has a complicated compound slope and Highway Superintendent Jack Bush told the applicant they can not locate their driveway off of the turnaround , due to plowing concerns , which results in it being impractical to conform . Motion : O . Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Although the relief requested is substantial ( 7 ' of 15 ' side setback and 20 ' of 70 ' front yard setback) only a portion of the home requires relief due to the angled orientation . Due to the turn around area creating an irregular Shaped lot the house will actually • be set back further from the road than conforming neighboring homes . Motion : O . Keleman Second : D . Sprout In Favor : 4 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 : See "A " and "C" above. Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D. Sprout In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, but it will conform with the neighborhood as proposed . • Motion : O. Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In favor : 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617.5(c) - 12 &. 1.3 Motion : Stephen Trumbull — Grant request Second : David Sprout VOTE : YES : (4) Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman, Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION . VARIANCE GRANTED. lie STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE CORNELIUS DROST The property located at 15 Royal Road (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No , 43 . - 1 =29 . 6) I , WALTER MATYJAS , 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 : MAY 612003 Dated : Dryden, New York Date: 12003 Walter Matyjas NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY MAV 612003 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Cornelius Drost of 12.9 H1cko y Circle, who was asking for rclieF from Article 15 Section 1206. 5 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Oicdinanoc. Said hearing was duly coriducted by the 'town of Dryden Zoning .Board of- Appeals on Tuesday May 6, 2003 with members presento Chairperson Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman, David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull _ AREA VARIANCE APPLI ANTP DRO T Ao INCONSIDER-rN WHETHER Ali, UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTTNG Or THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Given that all lots in the Royal Road neighborhood are currently zoed in ETA and uses! fOr M so.� purpo , i n t is consistent with that use and no detriment will occur. Motion . 0 . Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 B , iN CONSIDERTNG 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 FTNDS AS FOLLOWS : Igo , Motion : Sr 'Trumbull Second : O. Keleinan In Favor# 4 Oppowd : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE I SUBSTANT[AL, THE ZONTNG BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A FOLLOWS : Although the road frontage shortage is substantial , there are no visual or practical deleterious effects . Motion : O. Keleman Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : See "A " above. Motion : D . Sprout Second : 0. Keleman In Favor : 4 Opposcd : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER `I" HE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF - CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No, it was the result of a recent re-zoning Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D. Sprout In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON - EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION (SEQR was done by Town Board). Motion : Stephen Trumbull — Adopt Town Board ' s SEQR review Second : Oers Keleman VOTE : YES : (4) Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) Motion : Oers Keleman — Grant request Second : David Sprout VOTE : YES : (4) Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman, Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VAR-IANCE. GRANTED .