Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-01 Town Of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals August 1 , 2006 Members Present : . Oers Kelemen , Chair . , David Sprout , Paul Lutwak and Thomas Quinn Others Present : Jeremy Stiles , Representative for applicant ; Rebecca Crumb , citizen , Jan Kossowski , citizen ; John Barney , ZBA Attorney ; Henry Slater , Zoning Officer and Kris Strickland , Recording Secretary Agenda : 7 : 30 Karen & Geoffrey Yeanvood - Area Variance 7 : 30 Meeting called to order O . Kelemen Read the public hearing notice into the record stating that Karen & Geoffrey Yearwood of 4 Settlement Road were requesting permission to construct a private residential garage . This garage was proposed to be 11 ' 2 " from the side C1,y lot line where 15 ' is required . Tompkins County Planning Department and TG Miller Engineers &T Surveyors reported There was no response from any neighbors . ' J . Stiles Representative for applicant stated that they were proposing to build a 22 ' X 22 ' garage , pole style on the front right side of the house . When this lot was originally designed it was not designed to build anything but a house . The Yearwood 's requested a proposal to build a garage and the best area for this garage is where we are proposing it . The garage ,vill have the same siding and roofing as the existing house . There will be no design change and the driveway is also staying the same . There is proposed to be a no changes to the lot other than this garage and the encroachment on the neighbor 's property of 1 1. . 2 '. O Kelemen Is the garage going to be higher than the home ? J . Stiles No , it will match the existing roof plain . T. Quinn is the drive already there? J . Stiles Yes R. Crumb ( Concerned resident) asked if the peak is going to match the existing peak of the roof. J . Stiles Yes R. Crumb Asked if there are windows on the end of the garage facing the neighbors . J . Stiles There is an entrance door on the side closest to the neighbors lot to the right . R . Crumb Requested to look at the plan submitted . O . Kelemen Asked if there was any other place to build this garage ' without intruding on the side setback requirements . J . Stiles We could have put it in front of the home but there may have been an issue with front yard setbacks . P . Lutwak Will this be guttered ? Where will the water be draining? J . Stiles The homeowner did not ask for gutters . The front yard ® slopes toward the road not the neighbor 's property . ® Asked R . Crumb if she was the neighbor to the right ? R . Crumb Stated yes and that there property is higher than the Yearwood 's property . P . Lutwak Is there anything in between your house and the property line or is it just yard ? R. Crumb Stated that there is a bank with trees and shrubs . T. Quinn Are you trying to voice an opposition to this variance request? R . Crumb No , I am just asking questions and wanted to see the plans . T. Quinn The siding and the roof are going to match the existing structure and there will not be any windows facing the side lot just a side entrance door. J . Stiles Yes that is correct The Board discussed a possible smaller garage that may not encroach on the neighbor 's property. J . Stiles indicated to the Board that the 22 ' was the minimum they could go and still fit two cars in it . They would have also wanted a larger garage but did not have the space to do so . P . Lutwak Asked R. Crumb if she had windows facing the garage ? R . Crumb Stated yes . P. Lutwak What is the proposed lighting on this garage ? J . Stiles Stated that the front of the garage there would be a lights (Carriage lights) on either side of the garage doors . There is no proposed lighting on the side . The Board discussed with R . Crumb to find out whether she was opposed and what types of vegetation was between the two properties . R . Crumb stated that she was not opposed to this she was just interested . O . Kelemen Any questions from the Board? Anything more from the audience The public hearing is now closed . 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 . There is no negative impact on the neighborhood and similar setback variances were common within the Settlement Road Subdivision Motion : O . Kelemen Second : J . Goodrow In Favor: S 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 FOLLOWS : Because of the size of the lot and configuration it is not possible to build a 2 - car garage at any other practical location . The 22 ' X 22 ' structure is a minimum size to allow for a 2 - car garage . Motion : O . Kelemen Second : T. Quinn In Favor : 5 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : No , the requested variance of 3 . 8 feet is insignificant and fits the character of the neighborhood . Motion : P . Lutwak Second : T. Quinn In Favor : 5 D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED 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 : No , see " C" also the board finds that any additional runoff by the new roof should be controlled by the natural Swale between this property and the adjoining property to the east . Motion : T. Quinn Second : J . Goodrow In Favor : 5 E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes , see "A" &t "B " Motion : D . Sprout Second : T . Quinn In favor : S THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 6NYCRR617 Part Section 617 . 5ic1 12 & 13 THIS VARIANCE IS SUBJECT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 239 L&M Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed this proposal and has determined that it has no negative intercommunity or countywide Impacts Motion : J . Goodrow Second . P . Lutwak In Favor : 5 DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED , as requested , Motion : David Sprout Second : John Goodrow In Favor : 5