HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-04 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 41 2004
AGENDA : Lyn Donohue
MEM . PRESENT : Chairperson Walter Ma.tyjas , Paul Lutwak , Oers Keleman and
David Sprout
ALSO PRESENT: Zoning Officer Henry Slater , Applicant Lyn Donohue & Annie
Adams
L- C
LEGAL COUNSEL: Randy Marcus
• • • • . . • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • . • • • . • • • • • . • • . . • d
7: 30 PM Chairperson Walter Matyjas opened the hearing of Lyn Donohue
of 1872 Slaterville Road , Ithaca , NY who is requesting
permission to place a pre manufactured 10 ' X 14 ' storage shed
at a distance of 30 ' from the center of Slaterville Road . Ms .
Donohue is requesting relief from RB Zoning District Article 7
Section 703 . 1 , " I~ront Yard Setback" of the Dryden Town Zoning
Ordinance . Chairperson Matyjas read the legal notice and the
appeal into the record . Said hearing to be held Tuesday , May 41h ,
2004 at 7 : 30 prevailing time at: the Dryden Town Hall .
W. Matyjas Request to place a storage shed at the end of the driveway . A
copy of the survey map is attached showing placement of the 10 '
X 14 ' shed , because house and driveway are 30 ' to 40 ' from the
middle of the road . The unnecessary hardship is as follows : the
house is 30 to 40 ' from the middle of the road , the only other flat
land is over the septic system . All land behind the house slopes
up into the woods . We are nearing 50 and 60 years of age and
can not push the heavy snow blower up hill . They need the snow
blower acid lawn mower close to the house .
W.Matyjas , Supporting arguments .
Variance appeal # 1 Live in an older residential neighborhood
close is 50 + P all but 3 Eire very close to the road , 50 ' or less .
There are numerous garages , sheds and out buildings are said to
be in character . Behind the hedge , my closest neighbor has
garages and out buildings .
Appeal # 2 Our only other flat land is over the septic system , all
land behind the house slopes up into the woods . We need yard
equipment close to the house and we are getting 60 years of age
and need to have equipment close to house . The driveway is our
only option . The shed would be in the same location as the
garage is . The requested shed is only 1. 0 X 14 the size of a small
garage and located within the toe of the L shaped driveway .
I
Appeal n 4 The shed wouldn 't adversely impact the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood , most houses
have garages or out buildings within 45 feet of the road . The
house was built in 1. 933 and there are other older houses
around .
Appeal # 5 The difficulty was not self created , we simply need a
shed for the snow blower as we are too old to push all the snow .
We can not push the lawn mower and snow blower up hill .
Before I read into the record the County and the engineering
report, I will ask if the appealing party is present
W . Matyjas . And I w8ill ask if they 're any additional comments or anything to
add into the record so far.
A. Adams Well NO I 'm not sure how this works , but a few of our neighbors
called up and said it was fine and did not mind this request
taking place .
O. Kellerman The driveway itself from the edge of the road to where the shed
is that flat?
A. Adam No the driveway slants up and then turns into the toe of the L .
The toe of the L is flat.
O. Kellerman Is the driveway paved ? No , stone I 'm just a little confused , if the
driveway slopes up from the road ; do you keep the snow blower ,
more or less where it is now?
A. Adams You see , we just bought the snow blower, this past year.
R. Marcus So , I guess I 'm not following several points about pushing up
® hill .
A.Adams There is a slope to the driveway . The slope up to the other shed
on the top of the hill is a very steep slope and it is muddy and if
the ground is not frozen like this past year , I just can 't do it ,
R. Marcus The map does not show another shed , that is why I gun
confused .
A.Adams There is an old W X 5 ' shed that has been up there for years . We
have kept the lawnmowers there , but this is way too heavy to
keep up there . It is even getting harder to get the lawnmowers
up . It is steep and muddy.
W. Maty*as That existing smaller shed (needed to be shown on the survey
map where ) , the slope from the house to that location is steeper
than the slope of the driveway .
P. Lutwak You blow snow when there is snow on the ground and that
would mean t o me that there is hard ground .
A. Adams Actually , NO this year the first snow the ground was not frozen .
Even if it were frozen I don 't know if I could get it up the hill
because it is very heavy .
R. Marcus You own this property correct?
A. Adams Yes , I have been there since "85" . That is the survey map that
they gave me . The property goes back into the "30 's " .
W. Matyjas You see where the tool shed is beneath it says 45 ' + - on our
map . What is that measurement of? Frorn the center of the road
to the shed ?
�I H. Slater That is my understanding, I have not yet been there .
2
W. Matyjas If that is the case the shed is only 12 ' off the State Highway ,
H . Slater 1. 2 ' off of the edge of the easement which is 33 ' from the
centerline of the highway . 12 ' of pavement and the remaining 21 '
would be shoulder , ditch and backslope of ditch .
W. Matyjas It isn 't going to be anywhere near the traveled right of way?
H. Slater That is correct .
R. Marcus The description should probably be corrected on the application
showing that the shed and driveway are 30 to 45 feet from the
middle of the highway .
H . Slater They should clarify which one it is .
L. Donohue The house should be at least 60 probably 70 if it is 45 to where
the shed is going .
R. Marcus To the applicant . . . You may want to call NYSEG because their
easement for those lines for that location I would guess is 15 '
wide . It could be wider .
A. Adams What does that mean ?
R. Marcus It means that they can take your shed doom if they needed to .
W. Matyas One thing is the high voltage proximity act that requires that any
material personal equipment stay 10 ' away from the primary
lines . The other issue is the easement in and of itself. That the
utility has to gain access and be able to operate and maintain ,
construct and reconstruct as necessary . We would not want
anything to interfere , but the bigger issue is the high voltage
proximity act . I don 't know how you are unloading the shed or
constructing it but we would not want aluminum ladders going
up or crane .
A. Adams NYSEG has worked on the wires in the past but never had to be
in our yard .
R. Marcus The easement you are talking about is the DOT easement . A
drainage e �isement that would be typical for that area . When you
get to the edge of the property line is there a culvert or ditch .
O . Kellerman This 30 ' measurement perpendicular to the easement is that
perhaps a width of the easement?
W. Maty*as That is how I am reading it . I would think that this shape here is
what the surveyor defined as one easement and this triangle as
another .
R. Marcus You can make that a condition if you wanted to keep it outside of
the easement area . You are not in any position for being
responsible for that. What they are asking is what if they go
ahead approve it and the shed ends up in the DOT easement
area and I am saying you [ the board ] don 't have any liability for
that . If DOT came in and they wanted to dig it up again , regrade
or put a culvert .
A.Adams We are past that. They are clone doing street work along there .
R. Marcus From the map it would appear judging from where you have
sketched in the shed , they would have rights right up to the
corner of the shed .
® A. Adams The shed would not be on cement so it would not be permanent .
It will be on pressure treated risers .
3
L. Donahue I can 't see why they would build a road up into the woods .
A. Adams The shed might be able to be moved out of the way .
L. Donahue They wouldn 't build a spur off of the road , there is a little creek
there .
R. Marcus I was saying if they had to do some more work on that spot in
the future .
W. Maty*as Any other questions of order? Any other closing comment?
A. Adams Thank you for explaining .
W. Matyjas Before I close the public hearing I would like to read into the
record the Engineer Report and Planning Department response , I
think you alluded to some of your neighbors had called and I
don 't want to misquote but I think they were positive comments .
Henry, Is there any other contact from any others?
County Department of Planning response dated April 23rd
regarding the review pursuant to Section 239L&.M of the New
York State General Municipal Law . The action regarding the area
variance of Lyn Donohue , 1872 Slaterville Road Tax parcel # 72 . -
2 - 6 . The Department has reviewed the proposal , as submitted ,
and has determined that it has no negative uitcrcommunity, or
countywide impacts .
The other response we have is from TG Millers Dated April 261 " ,
2004 regarding the ZBA agenda for May 4 , 2004 . We have
reviewed the agenda and the application does not require further
engineering review or comment .
No other response from neighbors , which were mailed April 281"
2004 .
With no other questions or comments at this time I will close the
public hearing . 7 : 40
7 : 40 PM Chair Mat}�jas closed the public hearing and the board began
their deliberations for Lam Donahue .
A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE
PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHODD OR DETRIMENT
TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA
VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
As noted in the application other structures in proximity to this
location on Slaterville Road are less than the required 70 ' from
centerline . The pre - existing, non - conforming residence is approximately
60 ' from centerline . There were no negative comments or responses
from neighbors .
Motion : David Sprout Second : Oers Kellerman
is In Favor : 4 Opposed: 0
4
B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SONE OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE
APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
The contour of the land and the conflict with the location of septic
system and the intended use of the shed in close proximity to the
driveway prevent location beyond the 70 ' setback .
Motion : David Sprout Second: Paul Lutwak
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 , as noted in A & B above , an area variance allows
for the most practical location .
Motion : Oers Kellerman Second : Paul Lutwak
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:
Due to the size ( 10 ' X 14 ) and non-permanent location of the structure
(no foundation) there will be no adverse impact.
Motion : Paul Lutwak Second : David Sprout
In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 Abstain : 1 ( Walt)
E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Yes , but the desired benefits outweigh the detriments .
Motion : Oers Kellerman Second: Paul Lutwa.k
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR
SECTION 617. 51cl 12 & 13
Motion : David Sprout - Grant Request
Second : Oers Kellerman
VOTE: YES: (4 ) Walter Mattij .as , Paul Lutwa.k , Oers Kellerman and David
Sprout
NO : (0 )
ABSTAINED : (0)
DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED , as requested, however the location will be at
the applicants risk as it pertains to easements (NYSEG, NYS DOT or others ) .
5