Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-05 � S Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals ' June 5'h , 2006 0 Members Present : David Sprout , Acting Chair . ; Tom Quinn & John Goodrow Others Present : Timothy & Danielle Clark , Applicants ; John Nemeckey & Betsy Cleveland , Applicants ; Matt Van Houton , Attorney for applicant ; Mark Wheeler , Attorney for applicant ; John Barney , ZBA Attorney ; Henry Slater , Town of Dryden Zoning Officer ; Kris Strickland , Recording Secretary Agenda: 7 : 30 PM - Clark , Cleveland & Nemeckey Area Variance Parcels # 71 - 1 - 373 & 73 . -2 - 1 Clark , Cleveland & Nemeckey -Area Variance 7 : 58 D . Sprout Read public hearing notice into the record . Applicants are requesting an area variance of Town. Law Section 280a and Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Article 7 Section 702. 1 "Public Street Frontage Requirements ". After reading the notice asked if applicants were present and if they would like to add anything . Mark Wheeler Attorney for the purchasers (Clarks) and introduced Matt Van Houten as the Attorney for the sellers (Cleveland & Nemeckey) Mark then presented a map to the Board showing which lot the home is proposed to be built upon . Also explained a little of the history behind these lots . In 1985 a variance was granted on one of these parcels however the minutes did not indicate which lot the variance was granted for . It did indicate that the variance was to build a home on one of the parcels . Mark explained the variance is for the land not the landowner and the question here is to clarify the determination that the Board from 1985 granted and rendering that determination to a specific property . Another map was submitted to better clarify the issue before the Board . T. Clark Explained to the Board that the adjacent landowner was in favor of this and that it would prevent the public from accessing the land and using it for recreational purposes . T . Quinn Asked if the intention was to make the roadway better and more accessible . T. Clark Responded by stating that he already has quotes from a couple ADof different contractors on creating a standard 12 ' wide shale 1 driveway with emergency vehicle turn around . It will be built to the NYS Building Code Specifications . H . Slater Asked if the grade of the land was known? Clark Showed the grade of the land with a topographic map . It was determined that the land was not steep and a two -wheel drive vehicle could be used with a good solid base . T. Quinn Asked if the Board could determine which lot the variance was issued to? H . Slater Answered NO ! He spoke to the surviving members of the Board and no- one could recall . T . Quinn This variance is before us to clarify which lot was granted the variance? J . Barney There are two ways to deal with this and one is to clarify the prior decision . The other would be to consider granting two new variances one for each of the lots in question . T . Quinn Would that require separate applications? J . Barney No D . Sprout Asked if there were any other questions ? J . Barney Asked M . Wheeler to clarify the ownership of 6 or 7 persons to own a shared driveway . M . Wheeler There will be an agreement between the dwelling owner and the user of the driveway . The extension of the current driveway would be at 100% of the cost to the new owner . ® There is an agreement prepared that would determine who is actually responsible . J . Barney Asked if there would be an objection from the applicants if the Board were to grant this variance with the condition that the agreement were to be completed to the legal satisfaction of the Board 's Attorney . M . Wheeler No , there would be no disagreement . H . Slater Attorney Marcus has knowledge of prior shared maintenance agreements in cases similar to this and I think from the Town 's point of view we have had both good and bad situations with shared driveways . The emergency services need to also approve this . D . Sprout Asked for any other comments and then closed the public hearing at 8 : 15pm . The Tompkins County Planning Department had no negative comment or TG Miller stated that there was no further review or comment as this variance does not include the extension of any town services . 2 L 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 : Moved to adopt the statement made by the applicant as the findings . A positive Change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and there will be no detrimental effects on nearby properties . The Clarks will build a quality single family home residence in a sparsely populated residential area . The neighbors (Ed Dellert and his family) who reside on the access road are in full support of this application for a variance , preferring to have the Clarks as neighbors rather than to have the land remain vacant and subject to use by strangers or trespassers . Furthermore , the proposed building site is approximately one thousand feet away from the nearest neighbor and cannot be seen from any neighbor or the road (Rt . 79 ) . Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow 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 , Moved to adopt the statement made by the applicant as the findings . ® There are no other reasonable options . The only access to this large parcel is via abandoned Whitted Road . Furthermore , abandoned Whitted Road used to be a public road , providing clear access to this parcel . As such , there is a well- defined access route . The owner of the property over which this access travels , Ed Dellert, is in full support of this variance application . The Clarks will obtain a joint maintenance agreement (see draft attached as Exhibit 2 ) . No other feasible access route is available . The eastern , western and northern sides of the property are bounded by other large parcels with no road frontage or access . The value of this parcel will be drastically reduced if it may not be used for a single-family residence . Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Moved to adopt the statement made by the applicant as the findings changing "No " to " Yes " Yes , This is an unusual situation which resulted from the property formerly having the requisite frontage on a `l"own Road . Since the Clarks plan would like to build a new home on this parcel , they will provide driveway access which meets all codes (e . g. 12 foot wide , 12 " crusher with 6 " shale , which includes a large turnaround area for fire or emergency vehicles) . Included as Exhibit 3 is a copy of the driveway estimate . Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow In Favor: 3 Opposed : 0 3 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL H"E AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE XEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONINGr BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS1 Moved to adopt the statement made by [he apphcant as the findings with are additional co to me rLt. The proposed building of a new house on this large parcel will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district , The Clarks ' aim is to preserve this beautiful piece of land . The Clarks will not be cutting clown any largo trees or impacting any waterway in any way . The proposed building site is in the middle of an overgrown field . The field is currently overgrown with havlhorns , wild roses and other shrubbery and sTn211 trees (most less than 3 - 4 inches in diameter and less than 15 feet high) . Although the Clacks Will need to clear part of this overgrowth , we will definitely not cut down any large trees - In addition , although there are two streams on this property , our building site is not within over one hundred feet of either , Motion : Thomas Quinn Second ; John Goodrow In Favor: 8 Opposed : 0 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Moved to adopt the statement made by the app2icard as the f ndingrs , Nc , the lack of frontage resulted from the abandonment of the former Town Road . The prior owner had obtained the requisite variance to construct a single family residence . Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow In Favors 3 Opposed ; 0 THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT A TI0N UNDER SEAR SECTION 617 . S- C . 1 Motion : Thomas Quinn Secondd John Woodrow In Favor . 3 Opposed : 0 DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions , A . The joint maintenance agreement is written in such a way that it satisfies the Board 's Attorney B , The driveway surface meets the standards of the Town building Dept . and Emergency Services . This Board has determined that granting this variance the intention is to do two things - - - ■ Clarify that this variance is to supersede the prior variance and will apply to both lots ■ The intent is to grant a variance of Section 280a of the Town Law and to allow the construction of a dwelling on a property that does not have direct access or deed to a Public Road Motion : Thomas Quinn Second : John Goodrow In Favor : 3 Opposed : 0 Meeting Adjourned 4