Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-03 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 312003 AGENDA. ( 1 ) Herbert Benjamin ( 2) David & Pamela Chapman MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull !C ALSO PRESENT : Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary a Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) Herbert Benjamin , Karl Westerling — MHP Owner, Joan Norte — Laundro-Mat �W Owner, Applicant (2 ) David Chapman , Mark Wheeler - SLf Attorney LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus 7 : 30 PM Chairperson Matyjas asked for a moment of silence for the passing of fellow Zoning Board Member Nick LaMotte . ( 1 ) HERBERT BENJAMIN 7 : 31 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Herbert Benjamin of 1 Bright Day Road , within Little Creek Mobile Home Park , who is requesting an area variance to place an add a room to his existing mobile home . This is requesting variance to section 5 . 01 — D of the Dryden Town Mobile Home Park Ordinance , Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice , application and remainder of the file into the record and asked Mr. Benjamin if there was anything he wanted to add . H . Benjamin : I bought this back in January and finally got the pad ready for it and I mentioned it to Karl that I was getting that room and he said " no problem " so I thought everything was okay. They brought the add a room in , lined it up with the door , hooked it on my existing home and then I find out that it's supposed to be 10 ' from the line so we had to stop . I can not afford to relocate this so I don 't know what to do . W. Matyjas : Can you please state your name for the record ? H . Benjamin : My name is Herbert Benjamin . My letter is all I have to say . W. Matyjas : At this point I ' ll open it up to the board for any questions or comments . O. Keleman : Henry , does such an addition require a building permit? H . Slater : In a mobile home park , typically what we do is we ask for the right to inspect. Actually what we permit is the pads because the homes changg as they come and go and this is a non -conforming pre-existing mobile home park that's been around since 1958 . At the time the park was put together there weren 't any zoning ordinances relevant to mobile home parks or setbacks . I think you would find the majority of the homes in the parks are out of conformance with the requirements . The lots are pretty restrictive in terms of trying to make homes fit on them . O . Keleman : So is there a building permit required currently? H . Slater: No but the inspection revealed at the time we were requested to look at it by an adjoining property owner to be in conflict with the required setbacks . W. Matyjas : The specific location , 1 Bright Day , it says the existing home is 3 ' away so it will be a pre-existing non -conformity . K . Westerling : I have a picture , I ' m the owner of the mobile home park and the main reason I ' m here is to back him up . I did tell him that didn 't think it would be a problem . I didn 't anticipate it would be so close to the line . That' s Doc Jacobson ' s barn and that is within inches of the property line and that's looking from this way and that' s the shed (showing the board the pictures) the mobile home and the add a room . O . Keleman : Karl , the property line runs pretty much along this white fence here? ® K. Westerling : Yes . R. Marcus : Is that the parks fence? K . Westerling : I can 't answer that, I think it's his fence but it is on the line and connects right up to that barn . When I purchased the park , that fence was there . Also , Joan Norte who owns the laundry mat that' s at the end of that is also here in support of it. J . Norte : From what I can see , I have no problem . He keeps his trailer so nice that I think when he gets the siding on it won 't be an eyesore to anybody . O . Keleman : Is this white building in the foreground , is this also on your property or is that someone elses? H . Benjamin : That' s his shed . O . Keleman : That' s certainly not 10 ' is it? K. Westerling : No , there's nothing along there that is . W. Matyjas : I drove up in there and it's fair to say that most of the homes are sided . R. Marcus : Is there anything in the file from any adjoining owner? And we have evidence of notification in the file . W. Matyjas : Yes , Henry , you haven 't seen any written response correct? H . Slater : Correct , there were none returned undeliverable for this particular one . R . Marcus : It' s just curious that you said in your letter this fellow next ® door told the contractors to stop ; he ' s apparently got the letter but he 's not responded or shown up here today . W. Matyjas : I checked the record just to make sure . I guess with that, is there anyone in the public that has any additional comment about this ? H . Slater: I don 't know if your comments were heard Joan . J . Norte : I just said there ' s no problem to me and from what I see when he gets the siding on it's going to not be an eyesore . R . Marcus : You ' re immediately adjacent next to him ? J . Norte : Yes . R. Marcus : Is the laundry mat on the same property as the rest of the park or is that a separate parcel ? J . Norte : Separate . W. Matyjas : Read into the record a letter from the Department of Planning dated 5128103 and a letter from T. G. Miller dated 5123103. Is there any other final comments ? There were none . We ' ll close this public hearing at 7 :47 PM . (2) DAVID AND PAMELA CHAPMAN 7 : 49 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of David and Pamela Chapman of 405 Snyder Hill Road , Ithaca who ® are requesting a setback variance for side lot line . This is requesting variance to section 703 . 2 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice , application and remainder of the file into the record and asked the appealing parry to state their name for the record . D. Chapman : I ' m Dave Chapman . M . Wheeler: I ' m Mark Wheeler , Mr. Chapman ' s attorney . I ' d like to have the certificate of occupancy added into the record . This is my only copy of this but it should be in the file . H . Slater: It's in the general file . If you would like we can make a copy of it and give you that one back. W. Matyjas : I can just read into the record we have the certificate of occupancy dated October 25 , 1988 , M . Wheeler : When I looked at this a month ago or so it was a bit of a mystery because typically when you have a certificate of occupancy that certifies that the home was built in accordance with the codes and accordance with the building permit. Of course a building permit would not have been issued had it been within the setback part. I had to do all of this after the fact because the house was built in 1988 and the Chapmans bought it last year. Well low and behold the survey that was in the Town ' s file showed there was 15 . 4' and so that kind of explains why the certificate of occupancy ® was issued . But the most recent survey which you have which was done in 2002 showed the two corners and they are only corners of the property it's not the entire home that is in encroachment the nearest one is 10 . 6 ' so it would be about 3 '/2 = 4 '/z feet from the setback requirement and the other one was twelve point something which would be about 2 '/Z feet. So I asked Ken Baker who did the survey , I told him about the discrepancy in the surveys and asked him to go back out there again to see what was correct and he did do that and after this application was filed he went out on May 12 and he confirmed the survey you already have . He shows the same dimensions on it , he shows 10 . 6 and 12 . 4 . He said , "Well , I ' m right and if there was another map that showed it was 15 . 4 then the other surveyor is wrong . " So , here we are . I think also it' s helpful in these situations to look at what' s going on with the property next door because the reason for these setbacks is so you don 't have houses clustered together and this is kind of unusual too . David , maybe you can speak to that issue , I asked tonight what' s going on over here (pointing to a map) and there ' s really nothing so you really aren ' t putting two places together. D . Chapman : What we have on this lot, and actually I should have brought • the other tax map I have from my neighbor, but there is a strip of land that runs parallel with my line that is a driveway that goes back to like a 5 acre parcel . (Pointing to a tax map) What there is , is a driveway that goes down the middle of this and a bunch of trees and overgrown shrubs . It pretty much , from what I can tell from the pins , it looks like it goes down the middle and I 've talked to the neighbor and they don 't care one way or another. There is nothing there that he is using . There' s about a 6' strip of overgrown shrubs and trees . W. Matyjas : So , you have somewhat of a natural buffer to the boundary? D. Chapman : Yes , exactly , in fact we can hardly from my house to there , you can just barely see them in the winter time and the same over here , it's a natural buffer for this house over here (showing the board a map) . M . Wheeler: My own theory , and it' s a guess , as to how this happened , if you look at the survey map , the lot angles back . I ' ve seen this before when the lot lines aren 't parallel with the road . When they were building this place , they probable thought it was a lot further away than it was . Had they sighted this all the way back , they would have realized it, not that it justifies it in any way but I can see how that kind of error happened . • W. Matyjas : It looks like the house and the driveway are perpendicular to • the road . M . Wheeler: By the time you observe that hefty setback from the road requirement , you ' re pushed up against the lot. S . Trumbull : It doesn 't seem possible that 2 different survey companies . . . D. Chapman : What's unique about that is after we closed about a year ago , I started looking at the tax map and I went over to the neighbor and asked if he had a map and I looked at theirs and knew something was wrong , Come to find out a year later . . . W. Matyjas : I do have a question on the most recent survey , I guess we' re calling it the Baker Survey , the 10 . 6 is the corner of the home structure ; the 12 . 4 is again the corner of the home and where it meets the deck? And then , does the deck itself actually encroach closer than 12 . 4 then ? M . Wheeler: It does . I think I scaled that off; it' s about 8 feet at the closest point. W. Matyjas : Do we need that , Randy? R . Marcus : I think the deck needs to be given a variance as well . M . Wheeler: That's part of the application . W . Matyjas : But, do we have that dimension ? As far as the actual footage of relief? R . Marcus : Typically you guys want to see that on the map and there' s • been occasion where without that dimension you 've considered variance to where the improvement exists . M . Wheeler: For what its worth , I talked to Henry about that. I acted based on a conversation and not having Kenny go back out . W. Matyjas : I just wanted to clarify in the addendum , it says the deck was added which encroaches into the sideyard setback by about 2 . 75 feet . It starts encroaching at 2 . 75 , it actually encroaches . . . M . Wheeler: I meant the encroachment was , that's an error. I was taking it off of 10' . It' s about seven point something feet from the lot line . W. Matyjas : I didn 't want to say we ' ll grant you 2 . 75 and have you have to come back . M. Wheeler : The closest point of the deck is about 7 . 3 . W. Matyjas : I don 't see anyone else present ; any questions or comments ? I don 't see any written response in the file . (Read into the record a letter from T. G . Miller dated 5123) . This one is not subject to I & m . I see no other written response . At this time we ' ll close the public hearing . 8 : 03 PM Chair Matyjas closed the public hearing and the board began their deliberations for David and Pamela Chapman . i 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 : First, the house and deck have been in their present locations for 15 and 10 years respectively . Also , there was no opposition noted from any neighboring property owners Motion : 0 . Keleman Second : D . Sprout 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 : As an existing structure , the only alternative , remodeling the • corners would be cost prohibitive . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : 0 . Keleman 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 for the closest point is substantial (up to 10 ' ) , only a minimal portion of the structure encroaches . Refer to attached survey , by Ken Baker, dated 5/ 17/02 . Motion : D . Sprout 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 : Refer to "A" above . Motion : 0 . Keleman 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 : No , at the time of purchase , there was no known violation , therefore it was not self created . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : 0 , Keleman In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617 . 5 (c) — 12 $ 13 Motion : Oers Keleman — Grant request Second : Stephen Trumbull VOTE : YES : (4 ) Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED . *'*k*k*k*t4*#*#k*****A*#Ar'k k*k*k*k******7!k*****•k'kk*******tk***A'k'k****ktk****•kk*k******k*k***kFk* 8925 PM Chair Matyjas and the board began their deliberations for Herbert Benjamin , 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 existing home is within 3' of the property line , The adjoining property owner's barn is on the property line . The majority, if not all , of the homes adjoining this property line • are within 10 ' of the subject property line . All the above are pre-existing and non -conforming , therefore the addition • would not change the character of the neighborhood and in fact , the only public comment from a neighboring property owner was in support of the variance . Motion : D . Sprout Second : 0 . Keleman 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 : The only alternative , to relocate the addition in conformance , although possible , is impractical and prohibitively expensive (see attached estimate from Homes of Lake Country) . Motion : 0 . 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 substantial , see "A" above . Motion : D . Sprout Second : 0 . Keleman 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 : 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 . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : O . Keleman In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617. 5 (c) 12 & 13 Motion : Stephen Trumbull Second : Oers Keleman VOTE : YES : (4 ) Walter Matyjas , Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0 ) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED . • STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOM PKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter ofthe appeal of CERTIFICATE DAVID AND PAMELA CHAPMAN The property located at 405 Snyder Hill Road ('Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 69 . -2 -20) 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 : JUNE 312003 Dated : Dryden, New York Date : , 2003 Walter Matyjas � ^Y • NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY JUNE 312003 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by David and Pamela Chapman of 405 Snyder Hill Road , who were asking for relief from Article 7 Section 703 . 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance. Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday June 3 , 2003 with members present : Chairperson Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman , David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull . AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : CHAPMAN A. IN CONSIDERING VArHETHER 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 : . First, the house and deck. have been in their present locations for 15 and 10 years respectively. Also , there was no opposition noted from any neighboring property owners Motion : O . Keleman Second : D. Sprout 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 : As an existing structure, the only alternative, remodeling the corners would be cost prohibitive. 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 : Although the relief requested for the closest point is substantial (up to 10 ' ) , only a minimal portion of the structure encroaches . Refer to attached survey, by Ken Baker, dated 5/ 17/02 . Motion : D . Sprout 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 : Refer to "A " above . Motion : O. Keleman Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 • E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER 14HE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF - CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No , at the time of purchase, there was no known violation, therefore it was not self created . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : O. Keleman In Favor: 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 .5(,.e) — 12 & 13 Motion : Oers Keleman — Grant request Second : Stephen Trumbull VOTE : YES : (4) Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE G1tAN'I"Ll) • • STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY Or TOMI'KINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE HERBERF14 BENJAMIN The property located at 1 Bright Day Roast (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 37 . = 1 =2 . 2 ) 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 : JUNE 3, 2003 i Dated : Dryden , New York Date : 12003 Walter Matyjas t NOTICE OF DECISION TUESDAY KNE 312003 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Herbert Benjamin of 1 Bright Day Road , who was asking for relief from Section 5 . 01 - D of the Dryden Town Mobile Home Park Ordinance. Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday June 3 , 2003 with members present : Chairperson Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman, David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull . AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT : BENJAMIN 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 existing home is within 3 ' of the property line. The adjoining property owner' s barn is on the property line. The majority , if not all , of the homes adjoining this property line are within 10 ' of the subject property line . All the above are pre- existing and non- confon-ning , therefore the addition would not change the character of the neighborhood and in fact, the only public comment from a neighboring property owner was in support of the variance . Motions D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman 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 : • • The only alternative, to relocate the addition in conformance, although possible, is impractical and prohibitively expensive (see attached estimate from Homes of Lake Country) . Motion : 0. 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 substantial , see "A" above. Motion : D . Sprout Second : 0 . Keleman In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 Do IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ' ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN 1414E NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : See "A " 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. Motion : S . Trumbull Second : O. Keleman In Favor : 4 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION _617.5 (c) 12 & 13 Motion : Stephen Trumbull Second : Oers Keleman i O VOTE : YES : (4) Walter Matyjas, Oers Keleman , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout N' O : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE.. GRANTED . TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AJULY 11 2003 AGENDA : ( 1 ) Stevens Heritage Furniture (2 ) Walk on Wood MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Walter Matyjas , David Sprout and Stephen Trumbull ALSO PRESENT , Zoning Officer Henry Slater, Recording Secretary Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) Tony Stevens - Manager, Charles Stevens , Applicant (2) Kurt Scrudato LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus ( 1 ) STEVENS HERITAGE FURNITURE 7 : 32 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Stevens Heritage Furniture , 2085 Dryden Road , Freeville who are requesting permission to expand their off street parking . This is requesting variance to Section 1401 . 9 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . Chairperson Matyjas read the ® legal notice , application and remainder of the file into the record and asked Mr. Tony Stevens if there was anything he wanted to add . T. Stevens : I 'm Tony Stevens , I 'm the manager of Stevens Heritage Furniture and I 've been there since we built the store in 1997 . Like I said in the application , we ' ve never had the need for more than the parking that we currently have . I am expecting an increase in business with the new addition . I don 't expect our business to double but I do expect a 25- 30 % increase in business and I believe that twenty parking spaces will be plenty considering the fact that we have ten now and that includes employees . We ' re going to have twenty plus employee parking which will be in a separate area . During the week we might have three customers at the store at the same time and that' s if we ' re lucky . We get a lot of one at a time because we' re a high ticket sale and we just don 't have a lot of come in and go out traffic. We're a lower volume but higher sales type of business . Saturdays and special sales are peak traffic and we ' ve done fine with the parking that we 've had and I ' m going to be honest with you if at any time thought that I needed more parking for my customers , I 'd put it in in a heart beat . Number one rule of business is to make everything as convenient as you can for your customers . I just don 't want to bear the expense if • don 't need it. W. Matyjas : I ' ll open it up to the rest of the board . Questions or comments? R . Marcus : I just want to be sure , you ' re adding twenty to the ten ? T. Stevens : No , we are actually , the new building is going where our parking lot is now so we' re taking out the ten that we currently have and we' re going to put in twenty new parking spaces . R. Marcus : Okay , so you ' re just adding ten . T. Stevens : Yes , we' re going to be adding ten to the ten we already have . We are going to , our parking lot now is just gravel , we ' re going to more than likely black top it. We already added a second driveway so accessibility is already improved and we ' ll have separate exits and entrances . Whereas , when we first got the variance , it was just one driveway. C . Stevens : We ' ve got two great driveways . We' re going to have an in and an out. W. Matyjas : More like a one way traffic? C . Stevens : Yes . S . Trumbull : Is the barn going to be torn down ? T . Stevens : We' re in the process of doing that now. I ' m trying to salvage as much of the wood as I can . Some of that wood is going to be used in the new showroom hopefully for displays with a rustic atmosphere . W. Matyjas : I have a question , you mentioned about increasing the size of the business , is the number of employees going to increase ? T. Stevens : We are going to increase the number of employees . We will probably add two sales people in the fall . I don 't expect to add any more delivery personnel right away . C . Stevens : We've got two full time that take care of it now , but if we find we' ve just got too much we' ll have to add more . We only have one truck that runs (with deliveries) . T . Stevens : I 'd like to extend our hours that we ' re open and add two sales people and not have to work on Sundays anymore . W. Matyjas : You mentioned the old parking lot is going to be replaced . T. Stevens : That's where the new building is going to be . W. Matyjas : What' s the staging of construction ? In other words , will the new be built before the old is . . . T. Stevens : The parking lot is going to be done first because I do not want anything with the ongoing business right now. Adequate parking for my customers currently, an uninteruption of my business , we might close for a week when the building is done so that I can rearrange the • furniture and have one big grand opening . We' re going to ® have the parking done first and then the building . W. Matyjas : Asked the board if they had any further questions. I ' ll ask if there is anyone else here to speak on this . There was none. Read into the record a letter from Tompkins County Department of Planning dated June 27, 2003 and noted there was a short environmental assessment form as well as the site plan included into the file. Chair Matyjas closed the hearing at 7:42PM to hear the next application . ( 2 ) WALK ON WOOD 7 * 44 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Walk on Wood , 115 Luther Avenue , Liverpool who are requesting permission to erect two free standing signs 20 square feet each in area for retail business at 1808 Hanshaw Road , Ithaca . This is requesting variance to Section 1502 . 6 ( a ) of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice and application into the file . H . Slater : So it still works , but there are no ground freestanding signs . It' s just simply an appeal to the fagade . I became confused and Kurt called me and straightened me out . R . Marcus : Two signs both mounted on the face of the building ? H . Slater: No , one on the face and one on the side and as I explained earlier before you and Steve arrived , the ordinance doesn 't provide a definition of fagade so failing to find a definition there , I resorted to Webster and Webster said it' s the face of the building so therefore they are still appealing to the same section . They want one on the side and one on the face which is actually what he asked for. W. Matyjas : It' s two separate signs . H . Slater: The other thing that we don 't know is we do not know the total face of the area of the building is in any event. T. Scrudato : I brought figures with me . H . Slater: I figured you would because I asked you to so we don 't know whether it would be in conformance if there were only one sign in any event . R. Marcus : Two signs are allowed but the way the regs work it says one should be on the face of the building . H . Slater: You would have a choice of a freestanding sign or not more than 25 % of the fagade . They' re asking for one on the side of the building and one on the fagade ; nothing on the ground . R. Marcus : Right , but the table refers to two signs . • H . Slater: Well , it's been interpreted in the past conservatively so I ® might say it ' s an either or because it doesn 't give you any hint one way or the other . R . Marcus : What about the signs plural ? H . Slater: Maybe you guys ought to clarify that. R. Marcus : Okay , I ' m looking at 1501 sub 6 , commercial and industrial signs (read ordinance) . H . Slater: If they chose to go with freestanding signs . R . Marcus : You ' re just saying that is based on the towns interpretation . H . Slater: What our ordinance says based on the fact that it' s either, go back to 1506 , either freestanding signs or on the building , not and on the building . R . Marcus : That' s how it' s been interpreted ? H . Slater: Correct because of the word or, not and being there . R. Marcus : I ' m just asking to what has been done in the past because I ' m comfortable with interpreting it to say that the word " or" means one could be freestanding and one could be building mounted . I guess that's kind of irrelevant if you want both building mounted . So , again I ' m just trying to get clarification here , if you are looking at signs that are building mounted is it the case that you ' re saying the interpretation in the past has been that it doesn 't mean two building mounted it would only refer to two freestanding ? Again , the way that I read this could mean either. H . Slater: Well , I ' m not sure if when you talk about the facade that it's relevant because you ' re allowed to occupy 25% of the fagade , they don 't tell you how. R . Marcus : I don 't see any problem with using the language signs may be freestanding or placed on the exterior surface of the building with there being two different sides . H . Slater: I don 't think I do either as long as they' re on the fagade . R . Marcus : I don 't disagree with you that fagade is defined as the face of the building but if you have a building on a corner, to me that means you have two faces or two facades . S. Trumbull : Is that 25 % if that' s just the fagade does that mean the side of the building is also 25 % since it just says fagade? H . Slater: Well , at this point I don 't believe the side of the building can be utilized except by variance and that' s why Kurt's here . R . Marcus : I ' m just trying to build some rationale for how it can go . If you were to say that a corner building has two facades , just hypothetically . There is no question that one side faces Hanshaw and one side faces 13? K . Scurdato : No question . H . Slater: I think this regulation doesn 't go far enough . R. Marcus : I ' m just trying offer some possible basis for the direction the board might go . • H . Slater : I ' m more than lad to help p you because I see nothing wrong O with that. R . Marcus : If the applicant has some measurements or at least approximate measurements of the area , I assume you mean of both the two sides , and if the board were to consider the requirement that the size on the facade be no more than 25 % of the area of that fagade , there might be a way for the board to justify a variance looking at each of those two sides separately . W . Matyjas : Just to clarify the relief requested , is the relief allowing two signs where only one is allowed or is the relief more than 25 % of the facade whether it be one or two fagades? H . Slater: We don 't know that yet because he hasn 't supplied us with what the fagade areas are , W. Matyjas : Then it could be two reliefs ? H . Slater: They are still the same place , 1501 . 6 table 6 . R . Marcus : What Walt' s saying is each one of them could possibly be more than 25 % of that face . W. Matyjas : Read the remainder of the file into the record. Chair Matyjas asked Mr. Scrudato if there was anything he would like to add . K. Scrudato : All set. D. Sprout: What color is the paint? K . Scrudato : Hunter green . The building is off white . 41 W. Matyjas : Are the temporary signs coming down ? K. Scrudato : Yes , they' re banners . R . Marcus : Do you just want to let us know what the measurements are ? K . Scrudato : The area of the building is roughly on the side 1550 to 1850 on Route 13 and the other side is anywhere from 600 and 700 facing Hanshaw Road . S . Trumbull : What' s the square footage of the signs? K . Scrudato : No more than 42 square feet. R . Marcus : So you are far within the 25% . K . Scrudato : I ' m sorry , it' s more like 82 square feet . The logo and the hardwood flooring could be 103 square feet. W. Matyjas : That 103 will be on one side ? K. Scrudato : Yes , but that' s worse case scenario because it has shrunk . W. Matyjas : Are there any other comments? (There were none) . Read letter from Tompkins County Department of Planning dated 6127103 and letter from T. G. Miller dated 6125103 into the record. Chair Matyjas closed the hearing at 8 : 08 pm . 8409 PM Chair Matyjas closed the public hearing and the board began their deliberations for Stevens Heritage Furniture . 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 : No . The relief requested will result in less parking area than the ordinance requires . However, the total number of parking spaces relative to the size in square feet will increase ( 10 to 26 ) . Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 3 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 : ® Application of the ordinance would require 111 spaces so a variance is the only practical way to accomplish the applicants' goal . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor : 3 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Although substantial , ( 111 vs . 26) the variance reduces the total paved area . Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull In Favor : 3 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 : • OCompared to the requirement, it' s a beneficial impact to have less paved area and more green space . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes , but the regulations don 't work well for this - type of business , a furniture store with low traffic and high ticket purchases . • Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617 . 6 (c) 28 Motion : Stephen Trumbull Second : David Sprout VOTE : YES : (3) Walter Matyjas , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED . r*+�,►rt,erw,rues,kr�, ,rinttice+r+r,tirr+n�,t,t+r+►wir, w,e+r,ev,►+t+etiew,e�,rerwr*+►w.vwrr,�+stir,wwr,r,t,►,►,r,►,r+rr►+rw+rew+ei► ►ww�w 8 : 29 PM Chair Matyjas closed the public hearing and the board began their deliberations for Walk on Wood . 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 : Most of the surrounding parcels are commercial in nature , • and many have received variances for signage for many of the same reasons noted (distance from road and speed of traffic : 55 mph ) . Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull 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 : In order to maintain the strict interpretation of the ordinance ; a variance is the only means to allow two signs on two sides of the building . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : If the ordinance only allows one sign , the relief is substantial (2 vs . 1 ) , however , neither sign is greater than 25 % of the building facade and side areas ( 103/600 and 103/ 1550 respectively) . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 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 amended "A" above . Motion : S . Trumbull Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 a E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes , but the ordinance doesn 't address a commercial building fronting two roads . Motion : D . Sprout Second : S . Trumbull In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 The SEQR short form was completed as follows,: a ) no ; b) no ; c) no; c2 ) no ; c3) no ; c4) no ; c5) no ; c6) no ; c7) no ; d ) no . All were unanimously approved . Unanimously the Board approved Chair Matyjas check the second box of part III . THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION Motion : Stephen Trumbull — Grant request Second : David Sprout VOTE : YES : (3 ) Walter Matyjas , Stephen Trumbull and David Sprout NO : (0) ABSTAINED: (0) DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED .