Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-05 Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals July 5th , 2006 Members Present: Oers Kelemen , Chair . , Paul Lut%vak and Thomas Quinn Others Present : Patricia &. Steven Lucente , David Tyler, Attorney for Applicant, .� Larry Fabroni, Randy Marcus, Attorney, I-Ienry Slater, Zoning SU Officer and Kris Striclodand , Recording Secretary 0 0 Agenda: 7 : 30 13 / 15 Observatory Circle , Area Variance 7 : 45 17 / 19 Observatory Circle , Area Variance • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O . Kelemen Opened the public hearing by reading the legal notice into the record whereas The Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct a public hearing to consider an application of Patricia Lucente of Ithaca, NY , Town of Dryden who is requesting permission to further divide two improved parcels, which result in a nonconforming side yard and street frontage for each resulting lot at 1. 3 - 15 & 17 - 19 Observatory Circle . They are requesting a variance to Section 702 . 3 & 703 . 2 of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance . The two variance hearings were to be conducted simultaneously ' as they were the same issues. Then informed the applicants that they would need three positive votes not a majority . He asked if there was anything they would like to say . D . Tyler Wanted to report what had happened with the properties that were granted variances last year. These properties created 6 different units . Two of the homes have been sold and closed and one is under contract to close next week. We are at the halfway point and it has been something that has been well received . My sense is that the character of the neighborhood never has been changed but we do have more occupants now in the three of the units that were approved before which I think was something this board felt was a positive thing for this process . I would like to turn this over to Larry Fabroni as Henry had a question on one of the maps . 1 would like to indicate in part of your packet, we gave you the copy of the map that we used a year ago . What we are proposing tonight on Lot 5 is identical to what we had before on Lot 4 Larry has claimed that we have moved the line a little bit for the purposes of making the driveway layout as planned . L. Fabroni Lot 5 is exactly the split we discussed a year ago . The driveways are proposed to be changed . P. Lut%vak Could you please sketch out where the driveways are actually going to be . L . Fabroni Sketched out; where the driveways are to be located and explained the reason for the change . O . Kelerr►en Any questions from the board ? ' P. Lutwak Does the driveway have to be any distance from the property line? 1 H . Slater Replied that it could be right on the line . L. Fabroni Explained what the actual frontage for each lot was 13 / 15 at 40 + / - feet and 17 / 1. 9 being 59 + / - feet. O . Kelemen Asked if there has been any positive or negative response from the public? H . Slater There has been no response to this positive or negative . P . Lutwak Wanted to know the tax situation on the property . I-le stated that there were still taxes owed on the property . S . Lucente Stated the taxes owed would be paid next week . P. Lutxvak Responded that he had called the County and that there were $ 11 , 000 owed on parcel 7 . 4 and about$ 11 , 000 owed on the 75 also . S . Lucente That was for this years taxes. P . Lutwak Asked about a foreclosure . S . Lucente Stated that those would be paid next week. P. Lutwak I may make a condition of this variance that the taxes are paid and current. D . Tyler Stated that the taxes have to be paid in order to sell the property and the longer the taxes are not paid the more money that is paid to the county . I would defer to your counsel on that. If he does not pay the taxes he does lose the property . P . Lutwak I understand that but I would like to see the taxes all paid , I read in the paper where people do not pay their taxes on time and I would like to see before we grant more variances to work on properties that everyone is made current . Taxes were due in January . Someone is paying the difference and it would be nice to get them all paid up. That would be something I would like to see ® not only on this but also on future projects . I would like to see if that could be put on the applications that taxes are current . O . Kelemen Is this an appropriate subject for this board ? R . Marcus I do not know of any prohibition against making that a requirement but it is certainly not directly related to the request. There is no question that you could say it was directly related to a subdivision of property . I have seen similar requirements imposed by municipalities in connection with subdivisions . Here I would say that this is somewhat: out of the ordinary . I am not aware of anything preventing you doing it . It would be interesting if someone were to challenge it . I am not exactly sure what basis of court would have to deny you that as a condition . In your role as protecting the value of properties (which is one of the functions of a zoning board) I think you can draw a connection if you have properties that are subject to for closure sales they tend to lower the value . I don 't know if I have ever seen it done with a zoning board or I have ever seen any case law that has come out one way or the other on this issue . I am not aware of anything that would prohibit you from making this a condition . O . Kelemen Is this property 6 months delinquent? M . Lucente There is one property that has a couple of years of delinquent taxes and I think that is what Paul is referring to . I would ask that the board review the history the property . There was a very large real estate tax liability which Pat and I have been working very hard to pay off. It was many times the current liability , Within the last 6 months we have paid off almost $300 , 000 and iswe have made a very good effort and we almost have things 2 straightened out over inhere , I }could like to ask the board for some flcxibility on the matter of the taxes , D _ Tyler The taxes need to he paid when the property Sells . P , Lutwak I am willing to say all taxes to be paid prior to 2006 . O . Kelemen That should not prohibit you from doing what yolo need to do as far as constructing the new driveways . Are there any other questions? Read the TO Miller report into the record . (Copy attached) With no more questions [ would like to close the public hearing. The board chose to include both properties within the public portion of the hearing. R . Marcus Informed the board to go through the findings process for one of the applications because the applications themselves are separate . Jf you would like to get to the end point of that process and snake your decision _ I do not have any problem with you saying ditto for the second one . The applicant and the town would like the record that you have gone through them each separately . would point out up front before you start looking for finding to fill in them that the applicant-s submission of findings are probably the best you have ever reQ6vcCd as far as detail and completeness. I do not kno}4r iryou want to use all that they have provided because there is more than what is needed . O , Kelemen Asked Henry if them were any zoning enforcement issues within the two parcels . H , Slater No , they both suffer the tiame lack of conformance issues _ These lots will result in adequate area . The frontage and the 0 common boundary line are the issues . What was done before can easily be a model for what you might want to do today if you were to chose , Area Variance Applicant : Patricia Lucente - 1 - 15 Observatory Circle A , IN CONSIDERrNO WHETHZR A14 UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BF PRODUCED IN THF} CHARACTER OF TI{E NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CR1yXr D BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONIN0 BOARD OF APPEALS 11[ NDS 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 our typically ln(�Uer maintauled then rental units . Motioned made by ; T . Quinn Second : P . Uutwak In Favor, 3 B , IN OONSIDF}RING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT LAY THE APPLICANT CAN BF� ACHTEVED BY SOMA OTHER METHOD , PP.ASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PUFRSUO , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THC ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS T1411 FOLLOWING : 014hc applicant 's presentation to this board demonstrates that other approaches are not economically feasible or legally feasible . [Motioned made by , P_ Luttvak Second : T. Quinn 3 In Favor. 3 O , IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED] AREA VARIANCE 1 SUBSTANTIAL. TI4E ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINIS AS THE FOLLOWING . Yes it is substantial but regarding the placement and the nature of the existing structure as well as the existing subdivision lot lines there is no reasonable alternative - Motioned made by : P. Lutwak Second : T - Quinn In Favor' 17 , IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCFE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL CAR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN TI4E FOLLOWING NEICIHSORHOOD OR DISTRICT , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING . Existing structures will rCma.in as built with the exception of some additional drive way areas to be constructed as required in the conditions - Motioned made by: P. Lutwak Second : T . Quinn In Favor : 3 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED D117PICULT'Y WAS SELF- REATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS A9 TIME FOLLOW IN0 : Yes, change of usage is self- created howevor given the benefit which accrues to the owner and town and that the environmental impact, if any , is negligible , we feel the benefits for outweigh any potential impact . motioned madQ by : T. Quinn Second : P . Lutwak In Favor : This appeal is SEAR exempt sec 6 N Y C R R Tart 617 Section 617 . 5 -c - , 1 + - 13 This appeal is 239 Id & M exempt see NYS General Municipal Luw 239M- 3 -b( 1 -6) FINAL MOTION : Variance Granted with conditions Motioned made by , P- Lutwa.k. Second , T . Quinn In Pavor : 3 1 . Proof by surveyor's map that each new lot has a separate self-contained drive from the duelling to the public street- 2 . Deed previously approved covcnarits by Board !Attorney Marcus providing for mutual easements to protect and preserve the common walls between the units ('party wall ') , to maintain and repair exterior walls immediately adjacent to the comnnon boundary line , as well as the public utility lines for the respci� tive units . (Representative ' Sample " follows - ) , 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 far the common wall between 11he divided units. 5 - All taxes due prior to 2046 be paid in full by August 1 , 200 4 it wa decided by the Board to use same Findings of previous decision as the applications had the same appeals . Area Varianec Applicant: Patricia Lu ente = 17= 19 Observatory Circle A, IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE} WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEAR@Y PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONINO BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : ['he 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 ; T . Quinn Second : P . 1�utwak In Favor ; 3 B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE} APPIICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOMr� OTHER METHOD , FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE , OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE , THE ON ( NG BOARD OEM APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING : The applicant 's prescnta.tion to this board demonstrates that other approaches are not economically feasible or legally feasible . Motioned made by ; P. Lutwak Second : T. Quinn In Favor ; 3 Ci - IN OONSII) Fa RING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , TIME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE F() LLO I NO : Yes ii is sob %wntial but regarding the placement and the nature of the existing structure as weal �i the existing subdivision lot lines there is no reasonable alternative , Motioned made by ; P. Lutwak second : I - Quinn In Favor: 3 D- IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT 014 THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRC) NMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE FOLLOWING NEIGHGORHOOD OR DISTRICT , THE 7ONTNG BOARD OF APPEALS FI N DS AS THE FOLLOWING : Existing structures will remain as built with the exception of same additional drive way areas to be constructed as required in the conditions . lotioncd made by : F , Luturak Second ; T . Quinn 1n Ravor : 3 Ir _ IN CONSIDERTNO WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SUrrpw CREATED , THE Z0NrNQ BOARD OF APPEALS FINIS AS T14E to FOL TNG ; Yes, change of usage is self- created however given the benefit which accrues to the owner and town and that the environmental impact , if any, is negligible , we feel the benefits for outweigh any potential impact _ Motioned made by: T. Quinn Second ; P . Lutvrak In Favor: 3 This appeal is SEQR exempt see 6NYCRR Part 617 Section 61. 7 , 5 -c - , 12 + . 13 This appeal is 239 L & M cxcmpt see NY General Municipal Law 2.39M - 3 - b( 1 -6) FINAL MOTION . Variance Granted with conditions Motioned made by : P . Lutwak Second ; T . Quinn In Favor = 6 . Proof by surveyor 's rnop that each new lot has a separate self-contained drive from the dwelling to the public street . 7 . Deed previously approved covenants by Board Attorney Marcus providing for mutual easements to protect and preserve the common walls between the units (" party wall') , I.0 mal lain and repair exterior {walls immediately adjacent to the common boundary lime , as well as the public utility luies for the respective units _ ( Representative " Sample" follows ) 89 Restrictive Covenant prohibiting the future .addition of an accessory apartment to the newly divided duplex units . 9 _ Construct, or establish there exists the building code required fire rating for the common wall between the divided units , 10 . All taxes due prior to 2006 be paid in full by August 1 , 2006 6