Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-01 Town Of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals ' November 1s' , 2005 Members Present: Oers Kelemen , Chair . , Paul Lutwak, Thomas Quinn , Dave Sprout Others Present: Jill Kellner , Rebecca Mosher, Christopher Lowe , Randy Marcus , Attorney , Henry Slater and Kris Strickland Agenda : 7 : 30 .Jill Kellner, Area Variance 7 : 45 Rebecca Mosher, Area Variance 8 : 00 Christopher Lowe , Area Variance 7 : 47 Meeting brought to order. O . Kelemen Read the public hearing notice stating that Jill Kellner of 1321 .V) Ellis Hollow Road , Ithaca , NY is requesting permission to erect an � otherwise conforming residential home business sign attaching to her mailbox less than the minimum of 45 ' from the road centerline , (about 17 ') and is requesting an area variance to Section 1501 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance to do so . Do you have any thing you would like to add to that ( speaking to Ms. Kellner) ' J . Kellner 1 have pictures if you would like to look at them O . Kelemen It says in here that you would like permission to erect. I was out there and found that it is up . J . Kellner The sign is up because I did not know that there was that law . I had my sign maker find out what size , and the regulations . We put it up and it is set in concrete . The sign is very little and clients have still driven by it. O . Kelemen is there anything you would like to add that is not in written form? J . Kellner Only that I feel the sign is really tasteful and not obtrusive and if I had known ahead of time I would have done this first . O . Kelemen Any questions from the board ? T . Quinn Was your sign person supposed to be checking on this and they said it was OK? J . Kellner The only thing they found out was that it had to be 2 ' X 2 ', so we did it 2 ' X 2 ' and they never told me that it had to be any distance from the centerline of the road . I would have done it before if I had known . O . Kelemen There really is not any other place given your driveway . J . Kellner It is actually further back than where my mailbox is now . O . Kelemen Any other questions? P. Lutwak Has anyone complained about it? O . Kelemen Any comments or complaints? H . Slater The only comment is from Tornpkins County Planning and they state no negative intercommunity or county wide impacts. Also TO Miller apologizes for not sending their report but they had no comment on any of the three variance requests seeing that there ' were no engineering issues on any of them . O . Kelemen Closed the public hearing section at 7 : 53 P. Lutwak Asked for clarification on the Section 1501 of the Town of Dryden ® Zoning Ordinance from which the Kellner appeal is being made . H . Slater Clarified the distance question . ( 2 ) Mosher Variance 0 . Kelemen Read into the record the public hearing notice of Rebecca Mosher which states: Rebecca Mosher of 9 Ringwood Court West, Ithaca , NY is requesting permission to erect an attached private garage and entryway which would be as close as 12 . 5 ' to a side lot boundary where a minimum of 15 feet is required and as close as 59 ' from the road center line where a minimum of 70 ' is required . She is requesting a variance to Section 703 . 1. & 703 . 2 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . Do you have anything to add to this? R. Mosher I would like to reiterate the placement of the house on the lot and the placement of the door. O . Kelemen Are you at the same distance from the road with the addition as you are with the house ? R . Mosher It would come forward of the house R . Marcus Is the driveway already there ? R . Mosher Correct R . Marcus There is currently a carport at the other end of the house? R . Mosher Yes R . Marcus Is there a driveway going to that? R. Mosher There is but it isn 't gravel . ® R . Marcus Discussed the possibility of a problem with the utilities (NYSEG easement may be an issue) . If the survey is accurate in terms of where that garage is, the NYSEG right of way may be an issue depending upon the type of right of way there may be restrictions . R. Mosher Indicated that she would be contacting NYSEG prior to construction . O . Kelemen Any public comment? H . Slater None Harold Wellser A neighbor, wanted to express his concern that the houses in that area were old Vet houses and at the time of their construction they were not built to code . He just did not. want to see Ms . Mosher penalized for purchasing a house that was not conforming when built. P. Lutwak You are speaking in favor of Ms . Mosher H . Wellser Yes , most definitely I+ Slater Explained why the non-conformance , in that this area started out as a private development and eventually the original developer and the horneowners came to the Town to ask if they could deed the road to the Town . The Town took the road at that time but none of the houses were in conformance . This was done in the transition of zoning. O . Kelemen Closed the public comment of this hearing at 8 : 00 pm . O . Kelernen Read into the record the public hearing notice to consider the application of Christopher Lowe of 131 Upper Creek Road , Freeville NY who is requesting permission to construct an addition liven room to his existing home ® , ( living ) , g me at 57 feel from the center or Upper Greck Road where a minimum of 70 feet is required and is requesting a variance to Section 754 . 1 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance to do so . Mr . Lowe do you have any other comments to add? C . Lowe I think it is pretty clear I wanted to add some square feet to my dining room . I am not getting any closer to the road . The house is a very old house it was built in the 1800 's . I started construction and I had no idea that I would need a variance . 0 . Kelemen Are you under construction at this time? C . Lowe I did go ahead with the construction only because it was the only time I had to get it done . I did not want to offend anyone by going ahead . I understand that you can make me take this down but I had to take the risk. 0 . Kelemen Any other questions? T . Quinn On the survey map we have it shows a barn and a proposed addition to the barn . is your project something different? C . Lowe That was on there from a previous survey . O . Kelemen Closed the public hearing at 8 : 05 pin Kellner A . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDISIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : We find there is no negative neighborhood comments and no negative county or corrrrnunity impact. MOTION : 'I' . Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE 13ENFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED 13Y SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE OTHER THAN AN AR11A VARIANCE , THE ZONING 130ARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : If the sign is placed tuithin the recp.r.ired setback it tuiIi not be visible front the road. MOTION : T . Quinn SECOND : P . Lutwak YES : 4 NO : C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, it is but the impact is negligible. MOTION : T. Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 is D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPSOED 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 : There wiII be no adverse effect, see A . MOTION : 0 . Sprout SECOND : T . Quinn YES : 4 NO : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF CREA'rED, The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes MOTION : D . Sprout SECOND : T . Quinn YES : 4 NO : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ACTION UDER SEQR SECTION PART 6 .17 SECTION 617 . 5 C .1. 2 & 13 . VARIANCE GRANTED MOTION : D . Sprout SECOND : T. Quinn ® YES : 4 NO : 0 MOSHER A . IN CONSIDERING WI-IE14HER AN UNDISIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : 7'he proposed project will keep within the characteristics of the neighborhood. 77here was one supporting comment from a neighbor. MOTION : T . Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BEN FITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN 13E ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : 7'he location of the house on the lot and location of the front door dictate that the garage be built adjacent to the north corner of the house. MOTION : T. Quinn SECOND : P. Lutwak YES : 4 NO : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS ® SUBSTANTIAL . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, both the front and side setback are substantialIy out of code but the size of the lot and location of the house on the lot do not allow for any other solution. MOTION : T . Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPSOED 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 : A►o, see (A), also the existing driveway establishes the location of the garage. MOTION : P. Lutwsk SECOND : T. Quinn YES : 4 N0 : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF CREATED , The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes it is MOTION : T. Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ACTION UDER SEAR SECTION PART 617 SECTION 617 . 5 C 12 & 13 . VARIANCE GRANTED MOTION : 1' . Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 The Board advised the applicant R. Mosher to contact NYSEG prior to construction. LOWE A . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDISIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARI3Y PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : There was no negative comment and the addition is no closer to the road than the rest of the house . MOTION : T . Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BEN FITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR TI•iE APPLICANT TO PURSUE OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Not for this particula.rproject . MOTION : T . Quinn SECOND : D . Sprout YES : 4 NO : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes it is, see (A) MOTION : T. Quinn SECOND . P. Lutwak YES : 4 NO : 0 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPSOED 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 : Alb, see (A) MOTION : D . Sprout SECOND : T. Quinn is YES : 4 NO : 0 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF CREATED, The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes MOTION : T. Quinn SECOND : P. Lutwak YES : 4 NO : 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ACTION UDER SEQR SECTION PART 617 SECTION 617 . 5 C 12 & 13 . VARIANCE GRANTED MOTION : T . Quinn SECOND : P. Lutwak YES : 4 NO : 0 Meeting adjourned at 8 : 43 pm .