The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-03-02 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 2 , 2004 AGENDA : ( 1 ) Jeffery and Shara Walden ( 2) Jeffrey and Vanessa Dumont MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Walter Matyjas , David Sprout , Oers Keleman ALSO PRESENT : Zoning Officer Kevin Ezell , Recording Secretary Penny Lisi , Applicant ( 1 ) Jeff Walden & Shara Walden Applicant (2 ) Jeff Dumont , Applicant , Kevin @ Crown Construction LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus ( 1 ) JEFFERY AND SHARA WALDEN 7 * 35 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Jeffery and Shara Walden of 414 Beam Hill Road , Freeville , who are requesting permission to construct a single family home ® structure at 3 Snyder Heights Road . They are requesting relief from Section 280 (a ) . Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice and remainder of the file into the record and asked if there was anything the applicants wanted to add to the record . J . Walden : I was kind of curious as to my interpretation to the zoning law . My interpretation of the zoning law was if it was a lot of record then a variance wasn 't necessary. R . Marcus : That would be true if you were on a public road . In other words , the variance that' s required is not a variance of the town ' s zoning law, it' s a variance of the New York State law that requires public road access and it's sort of by default that there' s no body that has authority to blend variances to the state statute so it falls to the zoning board 's appeal . 280 (a ) , the heart of it is providing emergency vehicle access to any structures so there 's a presumption that if you ' re on a public road , the public road is built to standards that will carry emergency vehicles and maintain as passable so if you ' re on a private road , there has to be some further evidence that emergency vehicles can access whatever is built there . J . Walden : I don 't really know why the other building burnt to the ground and I hope it wasn 't because the vehicles couldn 't get to it . ® W. Matyjas : At this point I would open it up for any questions from the board . O. Keleman : Were there any negative responses? W. Matyjas : No , I have the two responses from the planning and Miller that I will read into the file but nothing further. Read T. G. Miller letter dated 213104 and T C. Department of Planning dated 1121104. At this time if there is no other comments or questions I will close this hearing at 7 : 42 PM . r*+«,�*« rr««, «***,r*�.**,�««x*..«**, **«*,�+r**«*«�,Mr*�****«,e***,r«k***,►«,a***,r**+ **w«kx«,t«««**,rr««*** 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 : There was an existing house on this lot, and since it burnt down , a replacement would improve the neighborhood . Motion : D . Sprout Second : 0 . Keleman 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 : No , the variance is required because the private road offers no public frontage , as required by Section 280(a ) . However , the private road has a maintenance agreement, dated 4/ 13/93 , Motion : 0 . Keleman 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 : No , the private road has provided access satisfactorily for ® over 40 years . ® Motion : D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman 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 A and C . Motion : O . Keleman 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 : Although self created , it's the only practical use for the property . Motion : D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 ® THIS VARIANCE IS AS NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION 617 . 5(c) — 13 Motion : Oers Keleman — Grant request Second : David Sprout VOTE : YES : (3) Walter Matyjas , David Sprout and Oers Keleman NO : (0 ) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : . , , , . . . , . . . ««*«k«««««««w«««««««««««« ,►««*«ti►«,r«,r« r«««««««« ( 1 ) JEFFREY AND VANESSA DUMONT 7 : 48 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Jeffery and Vanessa Dumont of 33 Etna Road , Ithaca , who are requesting permission to erect an addition to their home at 33 Etna Road , Ithaca , closer than the required 70 feet . They are requesting relief from Section 754 . 1 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance, Chairperson Matyjas read the legal is notice and remainder of the file into the record and asked if there was anything the applicants wanted to add to the record . Kevin : I ' m Kevin from Crown Construction and I 'm representing the builder and this is the owner Jeff Dumont . He also has a letter from one of the neighbors if you need that. W. Matyjas : Read letter dated 311104 from Laurie Ray, neighbor at 37 Etna Road. There is no other written comment in the file . Any other comments or additions ? J . Dumont : Just that we bought this property a few years ago and it was kind of run down and we' re trying to clean up the landscape and it is essentially an efficiency place for my mom to move into as she is getting on in years and this gives her the security of having family next door . I think it will enhance the quality and beauty of the neighborhood . W. Matyjas : Any questions from the board ? O . Keleman : This area that the drawing is in , is it on the flat section ? J . Dumont: Yes , it' s going from the 3-way of Upper and Lower Creek and Etna Road and it's about the third place up on the left. It's probably about a three degree plane . O. Keleman : Are the roof planes matching ? Kevin : This is the addition on the side so it is down actually below the existing roof line . This is only a one story addition . W. Matyjas : Other than the addition , there is no other setback issue? ® J . Dumont: No . W. Matyjas : There are no other comments . Are there any other responses? K . Ezell : T . G . Miller did not get back to me as well as the County Planning Department. W. Matyjas : At this point , lacking an engineer's report or the Planning Departments response , we ' ll leave this as an open item . K. Ezell : There isn 't anything in the file . I will talk to them in the morning . J . Dumont: We've spoken to the neighbors on all sides and the response has been positive with the one neighbor offering a written response . W. Matyjas : At this time we' ll close the public hearing at 7 : 58 PM . 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 : ® There were no objections from neighbors with one neighbor to the west in favor of it. The design of the addition is consistent with the existing structure Motion : D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman In Favor : 3 Opposed : 0 Be IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : The existing structure is pre-existing , non -conforming , therefore the addition would require a variance . However, the addition has been sited 15 ' further back than the nearest point of the existing structure Motion : D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Although substantial , it is less than the existing non- conforming structure . Motion : O . Keleman 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 applicant's #4 (letter dated 1 /6/04 ) . Motion : D . Sprout Second : O . Keleman 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 it's a reasonable solution to meet the applicant's needs . Motion : O . Keleman Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AS 4. 0 • =• • • I NON -EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 617. E(c ) — 13 Motion : David Sprout — Grant request Second : Oers Keleman VOTE : YES : (3) Walter Matyjas , David Sprout and Oers Keleman NO : (0 ) ABSTAINED : (0) DECISION : , . ., . . . ,• a . , 1 , . . . . . , .. . . . . . . a . . .v. i • `. ilOV � . v .. . o . . v .' • c ♦ HIV . I . _ • . 1 . vV . . •-' • I-. . v . V vv � • ' . r u ♦ • . v . • . v