Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09 Town of Dryden Zoning Board Appeals ' September 6Lh , 2005 / Members Present : Chairperson Oers Kelemen , Thomas Quinn , David Sprout, h John Goodrow , and Paul Lutwak Also Present : ZBA Attorney Randy Marcus , Henry Slater, Rachel Brill , � Bradley Pyle , Ryszard Wawak Agenda : ( 1 ) Rachel Brill & Bradley Pyle , Area Variance (2 ) Ryszard Wawak , Use Variance ( 1 ) Rachel Brill & Bradley Pyle , Area Variance Oers Kelemen : Opened the public hearing by reading the public notice regarding Rachel Brill and Bradley Pyle requesting an area variance consideration to establish an otherwise conforming residential building lot which provides 30 ' of public road frontage where a. minimum of 125 ' is required . They indicate that they would like to build a house and garage on this property as it neighbors both our parents and grandparent 's property . This land was originally landlocked and another neighbor gave us enough land for a driveway down to the road . We would like to ' live close to our parents and grandparents as they grow older and need more of our hope . Is there anything that you would like to add? Anyone from the board have any questions? Out of the 20 ' that has been given or will be given contingent upon or has it been deeded . What is the 20 '? Is that Jackson land? What are your intentions ? Jackson : It has been surveyed and we are waiting to see how this turns out . If you agree to that then we will then transfer that land over to them O . Kelemen We would probably make that a requirement in order to build . P . Lutwak The parents property is the square? Grandparents? Who is the owner of a particular property? There are two structures on that particular property . B . Pyle Rachael 's parents property . P . Lutwak There is a house and a barn on that property . Why not use some of that property for the driveway also? B . Pyle This is not possible because there is already minimum frontage now. T. Quinn Can you use the existing driveway rather than have two adjacent driveways as it makes for a traffic hazard . O . Kelemen Asked H . Slater if the Town required a specific width of driveway? H . Slater No , the Town does not . The state requires the 15 ' minimally . O . Kelemen Read a letter of comment from K . Zahler into the record . Asked if any Board member feels they should abstain from the considerations ? P. Lutwak Stated he would abstain from these considerations as Kathy Zahler is his wife . O . Kelemen Any other questions ? Any other comments? T . Quinn Revisited the driveway issue again . Possibly getting an easement and sharing the driveway . B . Pyle We were under the impression that we needed to have road frontage . After speaking with Kevin Ezell our own driveway should be separate . T. Quinn The difference between the NYS Law and the practical issue . The state law says that every parcel must have road frontage and the reason for that is so that emergency vehicle access off of a public road and that is the 15 ' of road frontage . As a matter of convenience and minimizing the cost instead of running a parallel driveway share the cost and share a driveway that would minimize the traffic hazard . B . Pyle The terrain of the land would not make the shared driveway a practical access . O . Kelemen Closed the public hearing at 7 : 50 pm arwwww***www�***:tarww*:t*,twwwx** w,tww*,t*,rw***,t*www*,r*,at,w***;t**w+*,tarww****www (2 ) Ryszard Wawak , Use Variance 7 : 52 Opened 2nd Wawak Public hearing at 7 : 55 pm O . Kelemen Read the public notice on the Richard Wawak requesting a use variance to convert an existing food distribution facility to light industrial and distribution facility at 80 Etna Lane Freeville . R. Marcus Explained to the board the difference between a use and an area. variance . If you as a. board is asked for a use variance you are granting the property owner the opportunity to do something on the property that the zoning does not allow to be done . It is not like the area variance where what is being done which is building a house . In this case you would need to find out this business would differently impact the surroundings . The use variance has a much higher standard . It is much harder to grant a use variance even with no neighbor objection the property owner needs to prove to you that the property really does not have any value unless he can use it for the purpose requested . P. Lutwak Asked H . Slater if the zones had changed since 1987 . It is still between the MA Zone and the RD Zone , H . Slater It is a RB - 1 Zone which is a slice that encompasses the area from Kirk Road to Main Street Etna that was left at the request of the neighborhood when it was rezoned in 1985 it is one and two family residential sandwiched in between light industrial and heavy industrial . ® P . Lutwak Would the new town comprehensive plan be looking at rezoning that area? H . Slater They are looking at making a Route 13 overlay corridor which would include this particular property . The Town Board may possibly be voting on adopting the Comprehensive Plan next week . This process may take some time to implement . T . Quinn Hoag long has this property been for sale? Have you actively marketed it? S . Lewis Yes , two years . . . I am the agent for Audrey Edelman . The design of the building and the size makes it difficult to sell . R . Marcus Have there been any interest or concerns on this property? Buying without needing a variance . S . Lewis The potential buyers have concerns with the distance from Ithaca and existing adjacent zoning . P . Lutwak Haw are planning on handling the waste from this manufacturing? R . Wawak We will be receiving subassembly and we will then be doing the final assembly . Outside storage not to be included as there is no need for it . O . Kelemen Would this proposed business fit into the existing business ® and future businesses S . Lewis This use would be less intense than the prior use . The use of the space would be less . The ingress and egress of the truck traffic would be less . R . Marcus Explained the specifics of a use variance . T. Quinn Asked how many employees would be possible? R . Wawak Approximately 3 to 4 T. Quinn People from this area or do you already employ them ? R. Wawak I have one person now and will hopefully grow to 10 to 15 employees R . Marcus Igo you believe your use to be less intense or more intense than before? R. Wawak Less intense R . Marcus Will your customers be coming and going or just your employees? R . Wawak Sometimes customers . R . Marcus Are products to be delivered ? R . Wawak We will be delivering P . Lutwak Will the raw materials be stored ? R . Wawak Inside . O . Kelemen Asked for any additional comment . Public hearing closed at 8 : 35 ( 1 ) Rachel Brill & Bradley Pyle , Area Variance ® A . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Granting this variance would negligible effect on the neighborhood except for a new curb cut Motion : Dave Sprout Second : John Goodrow In Favor : 4 Abstained : Paul Lutwak B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PERSUE , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING : There is a hedge row and topography that make a shared driveway with neighbor to the south impractical . Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : Dave Sprout In Favor: 4 Abstained : Paul Lutwak C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REWUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING Yes , it is but there isn 't any alternative . Refer to B Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : Dave Sprout In Favor: 4 Abstained: Paul Lutwak D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIORNMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONIN BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING This 2 . 1 - acre parcel is adequate for a home site . There will be virtually no change otherwise resulting from granting this variance . Motion: Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow In Favor: 4 Abstained : Paul Lutwak E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED . THE CONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING : Yes Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : Dave Sprout In Favor: 4 Abstained : Paul Lutwak THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON=EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION NYCCR 617 Part 617 Section 617 . 5 -C 13 DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions Subject to purchase as indicated on survey # 05 -221. conducted by Michael J . Reagan Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow ® In Favor: 4 Abstained : Paul Lutwak (2 ) Ryszard Wawa.k , Use Variance A . THE APPLICANT CANNOT REALIZE A REASONABLE RETURN PROVIDED THAT LACK OF RETURN IS SUBSTANTIAL AS DEMONSTRATED BY COMPETENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE : The board finds that the proposed use of this property is feasible and practical as demonstrated by applicants proposal and testimony of agent for owner . Permissible Uses Under Current Zoning were shown to be economically impractical as demonstrated by evidence submitted . Motion: Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 B . THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS UNIQUE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD : There are no other parcels in the district that would invite application for a similar use variance . In addition the use of an existing building would maintain the value of the property that would be lost if changes has to be made to allow the building to be used in conformance with existing building. Motion: Oers Kelemen Second: Paul Lutwak In Favor: 5 Opposed : 0 C . THE REQUESTED USE VARINACE IF GRANTED WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD : The existing building will not undergo significant change . If the use variance is granted . The building has been in use for 18 years of a more intensive manner Motion : Thomas Quinn Second: John Goodrow In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 D . THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN SELF- CREATED : The building has been unoccupied for 2 years . The applicant has been hindered in by the current zoning and the use variance granted 18 years ago . Therefore the hardship was not been self created . Motion: Oers Kelemen Second : David Sprout In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE I . The conditions of this variance are contingent on the operation of the business as proposed by the applicant in the materials (exhibit of 9 / 6 / 05) . 2 . The use variance is conditional that all materials and waste stored on site are kept inside . THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NONmEXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 702 . 1 Motion : Oers Kelemen Second : John Goodrow In Favor : 5 Opposed : 0 DECISION: VARIANCE