Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-01 Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda ; Lucente Lifestyle Properties 9 " 11 , 2 1 = 2 3 , 27 - 29 Observatory Circle Mem . Present = Oers Kelcmen , Thomas Quinn , David Sprout, and John Goodrow Also Present , Stephen Bell , Henry Slater , Applicants Patricia & texFe Lucente , BA Attorney bandy Marcus , David Tyler , Brian Warren , Larry Fabroni & Barbara McGinn Lucente Properties 8 . 03 Chairmen tiers Kelernen opened the Dryden Zoning Board meeting for the month of March _ 0 . Kelemen Read the request of Ms . Patricia Lucente . Then asked if the applicants had anything to add to the read statement . D . Tyler Started by passing out an informational sheet about different land types since the local zoning ordinance does not cover every type . Then stated that he was going to go against what the Planning Board suggested and not go with condominiums or town houses . '[`hen introduced Brian Warren who is a principle of Warren Real state to give a Aew on different types of ownership and what would be the best and most acceptable for the area in which Observatory Circle is located on . B . Warren Explained that the Lucente application is asking for tho must popular type of Ownership throughout the years _ FurtherMore , explained how pride of ownership is good for a development , T. Quinn Asked how landscaping is taken care of in adjoining lots , B . Warren Told the Board that whatever is on a person ' s half is what they take care of and that there have been no problems in the lots that he has overseen in the. upkeep of the half lots , D . Tyler Also stated that there would be deed restrictions put on each owner such as paiming must be approved by both owners of the building so it will be one color and so on _ T- Quinn Asked what type of person would want to buy a lot like the ones the applicant is requesting . B . Warren ,Mated that since the price of the homes would go down , first time buyers would probably be the primary buyers but it is hard to say , D _ Tvler Stated that the Board would only be looldng at three of the lots at this juncture . Turned the discussion aver to Lam_ Fabroni and Barbara McGinn to talk about Lot Scvcn , erg �1® 0 . Kelemen Asked if the driveways are segregated or if they are shared ® between the building residents . D . Tyler Answered by stating that the driveways would be segregated but have not been drawn up on any kind of a map . H . Slater Stated that the driveway culverts would be taken care of by the highway manager and that he had no problem adding driveways as long as they had all the proper permits . B . McGinn Started discussion on Lot Seven by stating the five factors , which were being considered by the Board , and giving her rendition of them . 1 . Stated that since there are already buildings on the land the change between ownership would not cause an adverse problem but only less since ownership equals pride and since there will be fewer people involved . 2 . Stated that Mr . Tyler had already gone through the idea that no other means could be easily used . 3 . Stated that it is substantial in only a technical aspect since there is no rise in density 4 . Stated that the applicant thinks that the impact would be positive since there would be fewer adults living there thus less traffic and less impact on Town infrastructure . 5 . Stated that there were two conditions ; that have caused the request for these changes the lowering of interest rates and the tightening of immigration . ® Then explained that every lot in Observatory Circle would have its own frontage . Explained that there would be the following conditions : Party wall agreement providing for maintenance , repairs and utility easements across the two homes , a variance for the zero lot line side yard set back . T. Quinn Asked if there was still a problem with Building Code compliance with the adjoining walls ? L. Fabroni Answered that the applicant is still working the problem over with Mr. Slater but are still requesting Certificate of Occupancy compliance . T. Quinn Then asked about the issue of shared utilities . S . Lucente Answered by stating that there is a separate meter for each living quarter . Also stated the lines come to a common area and then separate . T . Quinn Then asked who would have to pay if a water line or any kind of a utility line breaks if it affects both owners of properties? D . Tyler Answered by stating that the cost would be divided equally between the owners and that would be a part of the final contract that a buyer would have to sign before purchase . B . McGinn Then began discussion on Lot Six by explaining that the lots would be splitting the frontage of the road . 0 . Kelemen Asked what is the frontage on each lot . L. Fabroni Lot Seven has 36 feet and 75 feet . Lot Six has 74 feet and 57 . 6 feet. Lot Three has 42 feet and 56 feet . ® 0 . Kelemen Asked what was the acreage of lot three . ® B . McGinn Said the southern lot has 12 , 849 square feet and the northern lot has 17 , 829 square feet . L . Fabroni Stated that they did change the land configuration on Lot Six due to the Planning Boards worries . O . Kelemen Asked for sense of the Board to see how they were doing in a preliminary sense , which everyone said they understand and can go on . Read the public hearing notice for 21 - 23 Observatory Circle . Asked if there was any further discussion on this lot . With the answer of "no" the discussion was closed to this lot . Then read the last public hearing notice for 27 - 29 Observatory Circle . Then closed the public hearing for the property . Stated that the Board would then be looking at the conditions of approval for these lots . Chair Kelemen closed the public hearings and the board began their deliberations for the Lucente Properties . 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 duplex building already exists having been erected as permitted under the present zoning ordinance the change from rental units to ® owner occupied single family homes will bring desirable changes to the character of the neighborhood and will benefit near by properties also the community will be enhanced as owner occupied homes are typically better maintained then rental units . Motioned made by : J . Goodrow Second : T . Quinn In Favor : 3 Opposed : Abstained : 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 THE FOLLOWING : The applicant 's presentation to this board demonstrates that other approaches are not economically feasible or legally feasible . Motioned made by : Oers Kelemen Second : D . Sprout In Favor: 3 Opposed : Abstained : C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS ® SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING : Yes it is substantial but regarding the placement and the nature of the existing structure as well as the existing sub division lot lines there is no reasonable alternative . Motioned made by : T. Quinn Second : J . Goodrow In Favor: 3 Opposed : Abstained : D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING : Existing structures will remain as built with the exception of some additional drive way areas to be constructed as required in the conditions . Motioned made by : O . Kelemen Second : D . Sprout In Favor : 3 ® Opposed : Abstained : E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED . THE CONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING : Yes , self created , but this is a superior use as applied for , with very little environmental impact . Motioned made by : D . Sprout Second : T. Quinn In Favor : 3 Opposed : Abstained : This appeal is SEQR exempt see 6NYCRR Part 617 Section 617 . 5 - c - . 12 + . 13 This appeal is 239 L & M exempt see NYS General Municipal Law 239M - 3 - b (i -vi) FINAL MOTION : Motioned made by : T. Quinn Second : J . Goodrow In Favor: 3 Opposed : Abstained : Decision : Granted with conditions 1 . Proof by surveyor 's map that each new lot has a separate self- contained drive form the dwelling to the public street . 2 . Deed covenants to be approved by Board Attorney Marcus providing for mutual casements to protect and preserve the common wall between the units ("party wall") , to maintain and repair exterior walls immediately adjacent to the common boundary line , as well as the public utility lines for the respective units . ( Representative " Sample " follows . ) 3 . Restrictive Covenant prohibiting the future addition of an accessory apartment to the newly divided duplex units . 4 . Construct , or establish there exists the building code required fire rating for the common wall between the divided units .