Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-03 Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals • October 3 , 2006 Members Present: David Sprout , Acting Chair . , John Goodrow , Paul Lutwak & Thomas Quinn Others Present: Bruce Lane , Applicant ; Mark Macenas , Applicant ; Randy Marcus , Attorney; Henry Slater, Zoning Officer ; Kris Strickland , Recording Secretary; Residents - Barr Ticknor ; Janis Blankenship ; Paul Rhudy; Chris Balbach ; Helen Nivison Agenda : 7 : 30 PM - Lane - Area Variance 7 : 45 PM - Macenas - Area Variance 7 : 50 PM - Macenas - Area Variance 7 : 55 PM - Macenas - Area Variance 8 : 00 PM - Macenas - Area. Variance 8 : 05 PM - Macenas - Area Variance • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ® Lane - Area Variance D . Sprout Opened the public hearing by reading the notice into the record . Asked if the applicant was present and if he had anything to add . T. Quinn Asked if there has been any response from the neighbors , t B . Lane There has been none and the neighbor adjacent to where the garage is to be built has no objections . D . Sprout Asked H . Slater if there has been any response from neighboring properties . s H . Slater There has been none . D . Sprout Closed the public hearing. The Board went through the findings . A . No negative comment from the community . There will be no significant change in the character of the neighborhood and the proposed garage will match the existing house . The nearest neighbor has voiced his support for the project. Motion by Tom Quinn Second : John Goodrow ® All in favor Draft B . The Board adopted the findings provided by the applicant stating "Given the configuration of existing house and driveway , to locate the garage with 1. 5 feet of side yard clearance would require significantly more excavation as the area is at the base of a significant hill . " Motion by Paul Lutivak Second : Dave Sprout All in favor C . The Board adopted the findings provided by the applicant stating "The requested variance is 4 feet ( for a setback of 1lfeet instead of the required 15 feet) . Given that there are woods separating property from adjoining neighbor , it is not considered significant . " Motion by Paul Lutwak Second : Tom Quinn All in Favor D . The Board adopted the findings provided by the applicant stating " Granting the requested variance would lessen the needed amount of excavation , which would be a. good thing otherwise the variance would have to adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area . Motion by Paul Lutwak Second : Dave Sprout All in Favor E . Yes Motion by Paul Lutwak Second : John Goodrow All in favor Exempt action under SEQR Variance granted Motion by Paul Lutwak Second : Tom Quinn Material was given to the Board at the last minute and the Board requested some to time to review the material . H . Slater Stated that the applicant had some questions . Mr . Macenas called today and was wondering why there were five variances listed as opposed to the one he requested . By definition in both the subdivision ordinance and the Town Zoning Ordinance whenever you create a piece of property for whatever reason it has to conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance . In this case after reviewing the plat plan produced by Larry Fabroni who is an area PE . We result three lots that would be intended for construction . There is another lot , which is left over property unless I am misinterpreting it . In order to get access to all four lots a shared frontage of 20 - 25 feet would be created across the parcel at 387 Snyder Hill Road , which is an existing non - conforming lot . It has substandard area and substandard - 2 - ZBA October a, 2006 Draft frontage . In order to take the access private drive to be ® shared in common with the four parcels in the back. Mr . Macenas has to further diminish the lot area as well as the road frontage . Therefore , we have the variance to further diminish the 387 property , an area variance for a lot that is labeled # 2 , which is for insufficient frontage and insufficient lot area . We have adequate lot area for lots # 3 , 4 & S but we have insufficient frontage . This would be the five separate variances in order to create what you desire . M . Macenas Larry Fabroni is supposed to be here to represent me but could not . As a point of information I am a little unclear not having been before this Board before what you labeled # 2 the idea was to combine that with the 387 lot and to create a replacement septic . I was looking to do a land swap between the driveway and the lot labeled # 2 to give the 387 property more land for a replacement septic . H . Slater As it is proposed it is a stand - alone lot . M . Macenas I understand that . H . Slater Something could be done later. M . Macenas The game plan is to only produce 3 building lots . D . Sprout Opened the public hearing by reading the notice into the record , TG Miller's Report on both the variance applications and the Subdivision application from earlier in the year and the report from the Town of Dryden 's Environmental Planner Dan Kwasnowski on the requested variance . There were letters from nearby residents . The letter from John Young (an adjacent neighbor) opposing the variances for reasons of nearby wetlands was read into the record . Another letter from a nearby resident was presented to the Board and read into the record their reason for opposing the variance is due to well water issues in the area . Asked if the applicant wished to add any further comments . M . Macenas Stated for the record he had consulted with John Anderson from the County Health Department and he is very comfortable with this type of development and the land use with this type of density . I have also consulted with an Environmental PE by the name of Jim Saxton who works for Barton and Ligudous . I consulted with him on the proximity of federal wetlands and he well assured me that there are no problems here . Also , the Town of Dryden 's compensation for their environmental engineer I am not sure that Dan is up to speed on some of this stuff because the stuff I am getting from people that are actually doing the actual engineering everyday, from his comments I as - 3 - ZBA October 3, 2006 Draf t hearing two different things . May be because the people I am paying are paid consultants they are telling me what I want to hear but I do not think that is the case . With the way the codes read I have to disturb more than 5 acres before a lot of these things even kick in . We are under an acre of disturbance that is 42 , 000 square feet . If I were putting up a house that is 1. , 000 square feet I would have to build a lot of houses before disturbing an acre of land . The regulations Dan mentions in his letter I would have to disturb more than an acre of land . I would like that to be understood how that works . H . Slater For your information if he disturbs more than one acre of land whether collectively or otherwise he is subject to stormwater management. M . Macenas I have done my homework and my consultants that are in this profession as well as people that are in the government that have jurisdiction over the matter such as John Andersson . I think one of things that gets brought up all the time and 1 hold a New York State Real Estate license is in going to different meetings like at the County level people talk about housing and one of the biggest issues we have is that we need to have population density and we need existing infrastructure . I am taking a piece of land that is actually landlocked and I think I am adding to the community by creating the lots and increasing the value ( taxable value) and increasing the housing stock . The nature of this whole neighborhood anything built there has got to be brought in at a price and this would be affordable housing and by that I mean housing under $ 200 , 000 . Lots are certainly much closer to conformity than anything that exists . I think that it is actually enhancing the neighborhood . It will be newer housing stock . My partner Scott Howard is a tree farmer and we can bring in trees at a very low cost . This will improve the area . I am still baffled as to why I didn 't go back to the Planning Board before 1 came here but that is OK . H . Slater In no disrespect to you Mr . Macenas but in defense of TG Miller, the Environmental Planner and myself you will have to bear in mind that even though Mr . Macenas refers to having consulted with at least one Environmental Engineer he has given us absolutely nothing to review outside of that plat. We do not have any access to his data or information that his project is viable . The second thing is that we are here to discuss the merits of an area variance not the �I merits of the project in general and whether or not the - 4 - 7BA October 3, 2006 Draft diminished lots and the non -conforming lots can stand on their own merit as proposed in the area variance arena . D . Sprout Are there any comments from the public? B . Ticknor Introduced himself and stated that he lived at 383 Snyder Hill Road and that him and his partner Jim Blankenship owned parcels 375 , 383 and 385 all of which adjoin the property that is under consideration . We have lived in the neighborhood for just under 25 years . We have seen a fair amount of change and development in the area and have as much concern as anyone . I am concerned about the way the shared driveway was presented in the public notice . Indicated that the driveway was just constructed this summer. B . Ticknor and his partner are opposed to this development . They feel that constructing the driveway without approval of this project was presumptuous . B . Ticknor provided the Board with pictures of the existing house and the land and the showing the character of the neighborhood . In the pictures it shows the deterioration of the foundation of the home at 387 Snyder Hill Road . B . Ticknor believes that the accelerated deterioration of the home is partly due to the decreased drainage that has been created along with the shared driveway . B . Ticknor reminded the Board of the Paragon Hollow development and those lots are tinier than any other lots in the area . This was allowed with the idea that other land possibly including the .1. 6 . 4 parcel was to be left undeveloped . H . Slater did not agree with this statement he states that the lots are smaller only because of public water and sewer . B . Ticknor stated that the ground water supply was marginal . Some of the neighbors are trucking water even now at this point . Another development in this area would only worsen the problem . The only way the municipal water system could be extended to that area would be to add another storage tank at a higher elevation and a rather adsorbent cost to the torn and to the taxpayers . B . Ticknor also stated the access issues and the wetland issues . He is also concerned that the granting of this variance will set a precedent for further development of parcels with little road frontage . He would like the board to deny the variance and direct Mr . Macenas to cease and assist from further development in . 5 - ZBA October 3, 2006 Draft this area without prior approval . Also the Board should put a moratorium of the development of this area until further study . P . Rhudy Introduced himself and stated that he lived at 371 Snyder Hill Road and his property is on the other side of the property . He to has concerns of the development of the road without prior approval . He also would like the Board to deny the variance with the concerns of environmental impact of the area. . A discussion on the Paragon Hollow Subdivision was discussed again regarding the open space . It was stated that the undeveloped land that was talked about during that subdivision may not have been located on any particular map or recorded with the title . M . Macenas Commented that during the public comment portion it has been implied that the driveway was put it without permission or illegally . I would like the Board to know that a driveway permit was pulled from the Town Highway and in fact the Town Highway Department assisted me in the driveway to the extent that they put in the culvert pipe and furthermore I involved the expertise of a licensed PE in getting base and putting down fabric to be sure everything ® is stabilized and if people look at the topographic lines drawn on the map that in fact the drainage of all that land is towards the back of that property away from the wetland area . B . Ticknor Stated that prior to constructing the driveway there was not a drainage issue around the 387 Snyder Hill Road . M . Macenas Said that the previous owner of the 387 Snyder Hill Road was have financial difficulties and asked if I would be interested in buying the house to help him out. He has a sweetheart deal - I have given him life use of the property and I pay the taxes on the property . He continues to maintain it in the manner that he has maintained it since he inherited it from his parents . Even though the property is in my name I am really doing a public assistance to someone . The question was why a road was needed to be built prior to getting approval to develop the land . H . Slater Stated that M . Macenas could apply for a driveway permit at any time with the Highway Department. However, the Highway Dept. was never under the impression that there was to be a. road constructed . They simply thought it would be a driveway . If they had known that it was to be a ® proposed constructed highway they would not have issued a road cut permit until the plans of the road had been . 6 - ZBA October 3 , 2006 Draft reviewed and approved . M . Macenas had talked about ® building a town road and was discouraged from doing because the Town really doesn 't believe the taxpayer has any interest in maintaining a private driveway . Which is what it would be if it were only a few hundred feet long . M . Macenas did go to the Planning Board and they told him to come here first and that is why he is here . Again , we are straying away from the question of the area variance . C . Balbach Introduced himself and stated he lived at 378 Snyder Hill Road , which is across the road . Until this letter came in the mail I had no idea of the development of this land . I understand of the need for affordable housing with existing infrastructure . The reality of my situation is that my wife and I we have no children and have two wells and we have had to truck water at least twice this last summer . When I hear that there is more developing going on and I don 't believe there is existing infrastructure to support that at this time . It is a real concern for me . I have taken the steps I can to put in low flow toilets and I can only do so much . I would like you to consider this and in terms of taking an existing non -conforming lot and making it a further non- conforming lot and in reality there is already an issue we need to be very conscious of. G . Berry Owns 392 Snyder Hill Road and he has an issue with the Town of Dryden and a sluice pipe that runs from the west side of his property to the swamp (the proposed land development) . He stated that he had an issue with water running into the basement and has a concern about mold . He also stated that as far as well water there is enough at his location he had to dig to 150 feet . H . Nivison Owner of 374 - 376 Snyder Hill Road and has a fairly shallow well and have issues . Does that mean I have to dig down to 150 feet . Things that have come to my attention that concern me are that it does seem to me that it is going to change the character of the neighborhood . The lots seem small for both well and septic . Also another concern is that there are many parcels that are landlocked and 1 own some of it so this is going to be a precedent whatever is decided here and I don 't want neighbors on either side of me getting permission to go behind me and put building lots . H . Slater Stated that each variance has to stand on its own merit. R . Marcus We are not here to approve a subdivision that would be for the planning board . This board can only grant or deny the requested variances which will relate to the diminished frontage or 0 frontage . . 7 - ZBA October 3 , 2006 Dra f t If this board was to grant the variances and it does go to ® the planning board these are the comments that the planning board should hear . The planning board has the jurisdiction to make the decisions on the issues you are talking about with the availability of water . H . Nivison What about the question on the size of the lot for both well and septic ? H . Slater That is a decision for the Tompkins County Health Department . One of the regulations is to be able to have a minimum of 150 ' diameter circle where the septic system is to be located . This is not a subdivision by the NYS Dept of Health standards but it is a subdivision by the Town of Dryden . He will have to appear before the Planning Board to get a subdivision approved . He has appeared before them earlier in the year but the Planning Board told him that they have no jurisdiction to approve lots that do not conform to the frontage requirements . H . Nivison How do you base your decision? R . Marcus The Zoning Board has limited authority with the way the New York State Law works when it comes to an area variance their decision is based on balancing the benefit' s of the applicant vs . the potential detriments to the neighboring property owners . It is critically important to them to hear if any neighboring property owner has any objections of any kind to the proposal . When it comes time to make their decision to reduce this to 0 frontage is to be allowed . They need to know what impact the proposal has on neighbors . If there is neighbor objection as to what is being proposed that is what they would have to weigh against the benefit' s to the applicant? The first applicant the board was to consider was a property owner who wanted to build a garage that was 4 ' to close to their sideline according to Town of Dryden Law. There were no neighborhood objections the Board does not have on that scale a neighbor objection vs . benefits to the applicant . There is nothing to weigh in . When there is objection by the neighbor the Board has to absorb whatever those objections are . Some are not related to their jurisdiction . When it comes to environmental issues that does get factored in . This is very limited by Town Law there are 5 questions they have to answer and one of those questions is if there is any adverse affects on the neighborhood and another one is if there are any adverse affects on the environmental conditions or quality . Things like wetlands being impacted or the possibility of - 8 - !BA October 3, 2006 Dra f t drainage being impacted those are things this board needs to hear about . Typically they would hear about these from neighbors or input by the Town Engineer and / or the Town 's Environmental Planner . Typically , the applicant would submit something in writing from their Engineer and their Environmental Engineer. As Henry has pointed out the applicant has not submitted anything so there is no evidence in this Board 's file to rely on in regard to any engineer even having reviewed this . There is no way they no that other than the applicant mentioning it . All these comments should be made to the Planning Board if this gets to them is important because the Planning Board is the bode that has a lot of leeway to what it is going to decide and the Planning Board could look to the comprehensive plan as the Environmental Planner pointed out is not law but is a suggested reference point to anyone making decisions for the town . There would be another public hearing . H . Slater The only difference is that with a subdivision review there is no individual notice like you the neighbors received here . You would have to follow the legal notices or call our office what is on the agenda for the Planning Board and they meet every third Thursday of the month . Another option is to check our website . But it does have to get by this Board before they can go any further. The Planning Board can only approve lots that are in conformance with Town Zoning rules and regulations . D . Sprout Is there any other public comment? B . Ticknor I still have issues with the issues with 387 Mr . Macenas has said he has bought that property and has granted a life estate to the previous owner and obviously Mr . Liga is a man of extremely limited financial resources and the house is literally falling down and yet there is nothing that can be done . D . Sprout That is not our jurisdiction . H . Slater Mr . Macenas is doing this in the right order . P . Lutwak This is a proposal the lines are not actually there . It was asked what the intent of the zoning ordinance for required lot sizes and road frontage? H . Slater The intent was to keep harmony within the neighborhood . There is a set of minimum standards set in 1969 , the Health Department has their own set of standards . We are looking at a lot discrepancy within this area . T. Quinn I have a question for Mr . Macenas on lot 387 where you ® have granted live use what is your intent with that house when that person is no longer living there? - 9 - ZBA October 3, 2006 Draft M . Macenas It probably would make sense to take it down . D . Sprout The public comment portion is now closed . You may stay and listen or call the office in the morning . The Board discussed that there is not enough information to determine the findings . It was decided that in all fairness to the applicant it would be best to table this hearing until the applicant provides more information . R . Marcus Stated that his role is an objective advisor and for the record I have never represented Mr . Macenas but I do know him . He has on a number of occasions asked that I represent him but it has never materialized . The point I wanted to make was that you the board have two possible routes to travel one being to go through the finding that are required to be made whether to grant or deny . You do not have to go through every finding if you find enough factual information that describe the proposal to your satisfaction the Board as a matter of the rules of procedure anyone could make a motion to deny. I would recommend that whatever way you decide that you go through all five questions and make your finding . You also have the option to hold the hearing open and continue the discussion and make a request of the applicant for specific additional information . D . Sprout Stated he would like to table this and give the applicant more time to provide the information . T . Quinn In all fairness to the applicant we should give him the opportunity to give us information after he challenged the engineer 's report and the environmental planner 's report saying that he had information that was directly in opposition but he did not produce it. Lets give him the opportunity to produce this information . P . Lutwak I would like to see a written report from the Health Department . The wetland issue that is adjacent to him . R . Marcus Stated that it sounded like the Board wanted to layout a list and one of those items being a written report from their environmental engineer as to the impact on those wetlands which may include the Army Corp map of those wetlands on a survey not a computer generated map . You have a number of neighbors stating this is a wetland and the applicant has not submitted anything stating otherwise . The Board discussed that this application was not carefully Y put together and he may have not known what he needed . It was also said that the applicant was before the Planning Board in March and had this information at that time and LBA October 3, 2006 Draft has not done any of the things asked . This applicant has not paid for the other variances found . The payment of the application needs to be received prior to the next hearing. R . Marcus The Board found that there was not enough information from the applicant and the Board allowed Mr . Macenas more time and if the applicant still did not provide enough information and you had to go through the findings with what information you currently have and you do come to a denial (hypothetically) . There is enough documentation with letters with the letter that was sent from H . Slater and the Town Engineer back in March and the extra time you are allowing if (hypothetically) he were to sue because he thought you were arbitrary and capricious which is the standard for bringing a suit against the Zoning Board for denying an application your case would be that much stronger . If you feel it is appropriate to give him another chance and you list for him at a minimum what you feel is necessary to provide you the information you need and he fails to deliver that then your case is that much stronger. T . Quinn Moved that this application be continued because the Board finds this application incomplete for the following reasons 1 . The Town has not received the variance applications fee . 2 . The five criteria has no supporting evidence at a minimum the Board would need : • Written confirmation from the Tompkins County Health Department that they will allow for the lots as applicant stated • Written information regarding TG Miller 's letter dated March 9131 , 2006 • Written information regarding Dan Kwasnowski 's concerns • Final configuration of the lots proposed with acreage a US Army Corp wetland delineation J . Goodrow Seconded the motion All in favor This letter will go out and give him 30 days to respond . T. Quinn Moved to close the meeting J . Goodrow Seconded - 11 - ZBA October 3, 2006