Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-02 TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals February 06, 2007 Members Present: Oers Kelemen, Chair; John Goodrow ; Paul Lutwak ; Thomas Quinn ; David Sprout. QS7 v Others Present : Randy Marcus , Town ZBA Attorney; Henry Slater. Director of Zoning & Code Enforcement; Patty Millard, Recording Secretary; Applicants : Mark Mecenas and Scott Howard ; Town Residents : Chris Balbach , William Austin , and Helen Nivison . Mectine called to order at 7 : 30 PM . Topic : Mark i4'iecenas — Multiple Area Variances Area Variance - 387 Snvder Hill Road Chair Kelemen read the legal notice for the record and opened the public meeting at 7 : 30 pm for 387 Snyder Hill Road . Chair Kelemen — Mr. Mecenas has requested that the Board consider multiple variances this evening. The subsequent variances are moot if the first is not approved, so we need to limit our initial discussion to only the 387 property. M Mecenas stated that he had just received the letter that afternoon in which Mr. Slater requested documentation regarding the " life use of the home by the prior owner. " While his attorney does have that documentation on file, he did not have time to retrieve it given the lateness of the request. He can supply it to the Board . Chair Kelemen questioned whether changing the property voided that agreement. M Mecenas said that the prior owner agreed to the changes proposed when they made the life use agreement. Atty Marcus said he could not comment without reviewing the agreement, but guesses that if it is a typical agreement, it only states that the previous owner cal i live in the home as long as he lives . These agreements don ' t usually specify the part of the property to be occupied . Again, this is only a guess based on typical agreements, not on Mr. Mecenas ' specific agreement . Chris Balbach - 378 Snyder Hill , addressed the "ZBA. My specific concern is water. The last few summers especially we ' ve had to haul water because wells have had trouble . Mr. Balbach presented a letter from Barr Ticknor (a neighboring property owner) , who was unable to be present . Copies were distributed to members of the Board . lie r d r h� V Z-BA 02 -06-2007 Page 2 of 34 There was some confusion as to whether comments from the meeting in October were already ca„ !�idercd part of this discussion or whether they had to be resubmitted , Atty Marcus explained that the ZBA needs to decide N%;hether to use any and all information already gathered regarding this properl'v in this public hearing or- whether to start ovt!r. When making a decision , the ZBA can reference information presented on a prior date . Mr_ Balbach asked what the five points were that the ZBA was considering in order to make their decision . The Five points were read from the Area anance Form , Bill Austin — 403 Snyder. Hill , no con cenis over the ivater, With the grunting oFthe variance, Y am soil of under #hc understanding that in order to grant a variance, there must be a hardSliip . 1 wondered wha! the hardship was in this case in order to grant the variance? Atty Marcus — The hardship standard is very muck out of dale . That was put to bed with the enactment in the early 1990s of the new statute _ The hardship clause had never been clarified by the N1ew York State courts , and so it ' s been discarded under New York Law . It also wouldn ' t apply to an Area Variance, it would only apply to a Use if ariancc, So the Board is liniited strictly to the analysis provided under the statute which is con sidera# ion of the 5 questions that were read to use as support for what ' s typically called the balancing test — the weighing- of the benefit to the applicant vs , the detriment to the neighboring properties . B Austin — And just on the iding in — how the driveway went In and it was built so quick, and it was built right through the swamp, it seems like it was just thrown in . Was there a permit issued for that? ff Slater — Yes, there %va-s a permit issued . chair Kelcmen read the letters from three (3 tOwll residents that were received in October and the letter given to the Board this evening. Chair Kelcmen asked whether the condIiion of: the house should be a consideration in determining whether or not to grant the variance . Atty Marcus answered that the ZBA needs to determine which facts it is presented with that should be used in making its determina# ion. Chair Kelcmen read a memo from Codc Enforcement Officer l evin 'EzelI regarding the condition of the hOUSe _ Balbach commented that this time of year, you can ' t really tell how bad the odor is, but that it gets really bad in the summer and smells like sewage . BA asked if the Health Department had gone out to check on it . No one was able to respond as to whether the flealth Department had inspected the property. Henry Slater stated that since they have, not been notified that the 11'ealth Department has found something in Violation , but that could mean they haven ' t been there . All that can be Said for sure I' b tltiat the person I]] occupancCy ZBA 02-46-2007 Page 3 of 34 has not made any complaints regarding their living conditions. Without that complaint, the Zoning Department doe53i ' t have the right to enter the properly to do an inspect3o3} . Mee enas pointed out that at the last treeting, another neighbor (George) who is a well-driller trade a commit ant that is in the Minutes from the last meeting that says he has great water at the 4-unit apartment building but that other neighbors are too cheap to drill deeper wells and that there is plenty of water there_ Not sure why we ' re discussing this main parcel and the driveway because lie' s not subdividing # hat parcel , The ZBA reminded him that if the .first area variance (to take 2 0 feet of frontage form the 387 parcel and acid it to the rear parcel) isn 't approved to allow the right ofway through 387 Snyder Hill Road, then he ' s stuck and the rest of the variances can 't be considered . N1 Mecenas — So I don t have a right of way? (No . ) f assumed because I owned that and I have an agrcement saying I have thi s deeded right of way across it � am 1 diminishing the 19rorttage? H Slater -- If he has riven himself a deeded right of way, then al of #his is moot because tlla( ' s not what ' s applied for or listed in the Legal Noticc . BPS — It seemed like the house with the lot on it was going to be shrunk to slice off the driveway, N-I iV.lvecenas — My understanding is that what I was asking for � I own these t%v0 parcels, One has road frontage and one doesn ' t, I ' m giving niyselfa deeded right of way across my front parcel _ H Slater — What I understand F'ro3rn your appIica# ions and our conversations i s that you were going to diminish the 387 Itropeily by 20 feet to create a shared driveway for the 3 parcels in the back who would cornrnonly own that 2 0 feet . i didn ' t enders#and that you just simply wanted to grant yourself an easement across the !'rant property providing access only by an casement_ in ether words , they would have 0 frontage, and that ' s not the way those legal notices are written . M Mecenas — Why don ' # we adj udicate the issue — 1 didn ' t understand that ' s how it is _ if that ' s how it is, ok. BA — In either case, you still have to address the fact that it' s not I25 ' 9 H Slater — Each oFthe lots in the back are subject to the zoning ordinance requiring, in additions to other requirements , 125 ' of public frontage. They' re also subj ect, under Town Law, to ha%rc a minimum of 15 ' nFpribIIc frontage for er3lergenccy ingress and egress. That is typical Iy for municipalities that don ' t have local zoning, It also applies IZere. Our requirement is substantially more than what Neu York ' s is . In this particular case, i think we ' re appealing both of those simply becai.Lse the rear lots don ' ( have any frontage _ fin addition to that, he has the parceI at 387 Snyder Hill Toad that was created prior to the existence of zoning in the Town of Dryden. which 1 believe now has 9 0 ' of fronc<tge and , 4 of an acre, in that neighborhood . In any event, that zone , when it was created , said you had to have 125 ' of road franca a and not less than . 667 acres rrrinimum _ The Health Depart3rent supercedes that AS acres and says you have to have at least 7BA 02-46-2007 Page 4 of 34 l acre to build — but we 're not addressing Health Depaiiment issues, although we should consider them . For instance, if the casement or the deeded 0 ' that he' s proposing were to be over the septic lield , i think the Health Department would have an objection to that. I don ' t believe it does. So when the zone was created , the law receanized the fact that there were likely to exist parcels that had been created prior to zoning that would be used for housing, whatevf r, and it ' s not right to say you gotta discontinue that use . Since it' s functioning as it is , you may continue that use provided you don ' t further diminish it . For further diminishment, you have to seek relif from the Zuni ng Board of Appeals, which is why I deterini e ued that you needed a variance for the front lot to be further diminished by 20 ' and about . I of an acre bringing it down to . 34 acres and 70 feet of frontage . And of course my opinion has been, that ' s the key to the whole thing, is whether ter not it ' s appropriate to further diminish that already substantially non- conforniing lot in the attempt to create 3 new lots . BA - IFhe grants hini self an easement across it, your point is moot, right? H 8 biter — Right , And so are these applications because that' s not the way they' re written _ They would have to have 0 frontage and be in conflict with both local zoning and Town Law . Easement is not considered frontage. It ' s just a right to cross property, So they would have xoro frontage and be inconsistcrit with both 280a of. Towu Law and the Town requirement for 1 5 ' . Atty Marcus — And your Board has had occasion to touch on this before, to grant a variance both from the Town of Drydcn7s requirements .for frontage and the State Law that requires the minimum of 15 ' of frontage , Town Law is 281a. That ' s another question that ' s within your authority- Ill Slater — The State designates you as the agency to en Certain the variance to their requirements. ou ' ue dorle this on more than one occasion , 13A � Are we going to listen to what ' s written or what you Intended" ivlecenas — .lust to make it simple , let ' s go with what ' s written, At least that way there is written documentation of what happened and let ' s just stick with that which is obviously a misunderstanding, miscommunication , that ' s A. I ' ll go with the flow here. Arty Marcus — I know you were asking if there was anymore public comment . I wasn ' t sure if you were going to actually read into the record the 2 letters that you guys got — from TG Miller and from the Town Environmental .PIauuier , I ' m not saying that you have to read tfitwm in, but _ . , Helen Nivison — Can I make a colrunent if you ' re sti I l asking for public i�tiput 1My name is )1 el en Nivison and I own 374- 37 6 Snyder HiII Road _ i live in that neighborhood and i understand some of what you ' re doing and only some of it and so I ' m just going to make a comment that where i ' rn corning froni that to ask for a +variance to not have to obey the current rules so you can put in higher density housing and my objection is really, I don' t know if this applies to anything you ' re considering, it ' s just that I have a eery beautiful spat , It ' s really beautiful , And i feel that the quality of life changes Vlicn it gets more crowded and right now it ' s not zoned to be more crowded . I feel like the 4- plcx across the street and where he ' s proposing to put these in was a ZBA 02 A 6-2007 Page 5 of 34 mistake- I can hear loud music every now and then and other noises and it ' s a really beautiful spot, it' s zoned a certain way, and I w1sh it didn ' t have to be changed - it will affect the duality of life , So I ' m opposed . Oe-rs .Kelerr<en � Speaking of sight lines or view scapes, I read somewliere in here about a 10 ' line of sight being an issue , Atty Marcus — The reference is in the engineering document- it references the line of sight. It has to do with highway safety , 0crs Kelcmen — I was wondering what that was alluding to . Atty Marcus — If you go back to an earlier. letter, 1t vas spelled out a little bit more clearly — the questloll of whether there vas adequate sight distance down the road from the driveway - ers Kelemen — Are you suggesting I read the letters ? Atty Marcus — The February letter, this One that lies � polnts 11sted, that ' s new to the Board and me tonight, I don ' t know ifthe applicant has seen that . M Mecenas — 1 received it at the last ininute today. Oers Kelelrlen — Read February 2`1 letter from TG Miller, Andrew Sciarabba , addressed to the Board of Appeals regarding the application in question , M Mecenas — In response to point #2 , my understanding 1s that this NY. SEG (teal is an easewmerit and should not interfere with septic/ leach field . tty Marcus — If I understand right fi-arrl the snaps, it is a transmission easement. G1V011 the width of it , it looks like it ' s a double I ne with 150 ' width . It really depends on when that easement was acquired because some of there speci €i cal Iy say that you can do khatever you want, and some of them — I can think of one example in the V illage of Lansing that I ' m familiar with of this type with transmission inain line that says you can ' t do anythin& So it ' s really a Funchorl of the document itself. Ifit ' s an older one , and I have no clue how o I d this one is, it probably says you can do what you want on that land , Meccnas — ijust received this today and I haven ' t had time to investigate it . Atcy Marcus — S o as far as the Board ' s decision n) ak1ng }vlth response to that pol lit, you in ay %vast to — whatever direction you ' re going , you may want to make a note that that would be a condition to gel that resoIvedI if you ' re inclined to grant a variance for that lot , it would have to be cond1 (toned en just exactly what M r. 1vlecentus sta(e4rl — that he can use the area Cruder the Ousement- T Mecenas — I ' m going to explore whatever zoning allows , What does coning allow? Typically, and e ° re talking about the Health Department , I spoke with John Anderson in a general sense , ZBA 02-06-2007 Page G of 34 and to a large dcorec what he told me is that it depends on Nvhat we. ' 11 let you do for septics . o if he ' d let me have — are you familiar with the projects that Ivar Janson d 1 d off Hon„ ess Larie whore he ' s got units side by side? If:zoning allowed that, or more to the point if the septic design was allowed b the Health Department, that type of split, them again it would be fee simple owner hip , owner occupied situation, so that would be it . And on this point too , I rev ic cd this with Mr . Fab broni on the phone just p ri or to the meeting acid he said we wouldn ' t have to go under the lines . We could do the septic and do a pump system to another part afthat lot so - not having the area in the easement to use From a technical point is not going to keep us from having a capable septic . BA — When do we get to see some engineering documents from him ` The ones you speak- or? Mecenas — I believe you have them . 14c filled out this application and addressed a] 1 the 5 points , ers Keleirien — I guess the evneern the Board is ultimately going to have to acknowledge is that you were asked for 5 specific items back in October . It ' s my understanding that these have not boon addressed . They asked for documentation, not test imeny key }your engineer, Wri tten confirmation from. Tompkins County Department of Environmental health as to their ,position with regards to onsite septic requirements . Do you have that ? M Mcccnas — No , 1 do not_ Oers Kel ern en — WriRen rebuttal whiell addresses the concerns of the Town Engineer, TG Mi11er, dated October 2 and March 9 . 'M Mecenas - I think that written rebuital — i f you read a f1 these � if you compare that Zvi th 'what Mr . laabbroniprepared, it should address all those . Oers Kelemen — I have read it and I don ' t remember i tern d . Configuration — lot plat — does that neap show the detail as required ":1 Atty Marcus — It ' s a revised map — revised from the one you saw in etober, It s110W5 3 lots instead of4, And it shoWs that slicing off of the 20 ' feet of the easterly end of the lot with the road frontage _ It eliminates the problem that was identified back in October where tlicre was some Iv, Rover acreage that didn ' t seem to he part of any one of the lots so that now what had been Ieflover acreage is part of Lot 1 . Whether it shows evetything you guys want, again that ' s your judgment call . It is a map of what' s being proposed . ft ' s a map that ties in to the description that lie provides here . Is the definition of gore the leftover` I ' m not really seeing that here , Atty Marcus - Gore nieans property that ' s not part of any parse ] on either side of it. Oers Kelemen — The other item I ' m asking about — is a copy of a current US Army Corps of Engineers wedands delineation _ L13A 02A &2007 Page 7 of 34 Mecenas — For this site, We3m in a Federal Wetland Area, not a NYS DEC , There is - this doesn ' t show up . This tax parcel doesn ' t show up in the Fed era I Wetland map. The tax parcel that I ' m asking for subdivision on . 1=1 Slater T 1 think you asked him to get clarification on whether tI1ere were, wetlands on that property. To my knowledge , the Ainry Corps hasn ' t responded . Whether he asked them or not, I don ' t knave . They haven ' t been in contact with us about it and Typical I they do when they do a delineation , They don ' t charge For the delineation , Atty Marcus - That question came up because o f this map that was provided in October that shows an area ofFederal Wetland and part of the driveway area is in that . Is this map From the Federal Records ? H Slater — That is actually a tax parcel map with an overlay. 1 assLmle Mr. Fabbroniput this on here" Mecenas — Y cs . He put all that together. I can get him on the phone right ]loaf i f you would like to ask him . Atty Marcus - Gers � what }you were asking right now is whether the applicant has the items That the Board had requested in October. Oers 'Kelemen — Right . Atl.y Marcus — 1 think you got the answer that there are a couple of things that aren 't here , ers Kelemen — Item A and item C are lacking, as best I can tell _ M Mccena� — items A and E being what" Oers Kelemen — Item A being the Tompkins County Department of Environmental Health written _ . M M ecenas , That was the point of Larry (Fabbroni ), as a licensed engineer, Oers Kclemen — i believe the Board was asking for that coming from the Tompkins County Department of Erivi ro nme n tal Health . H Slater — It ' s not a sel f--tesT that anyone can do _ It has to be done, or at least observed, by them . And they issue a pengnIi that ' s good For I }year_ -BA — So while Mr_ FabbroJii ' s opiniol1 is valuable , being a professional imgineer, it ' s irrelevant . BA — It ' s not a response to the request the Board made. T G Miller' s ] etter OZBA OM6-2607 Page 8 of 34 'IM Mecenas — on the phone to Larry Fabbroni - the question has come up with whether you are qualified to do a perk test for the Tonipkins County Health Department. Mr. Mecenas stated that .LalTy' S response to that question was "Absolutely." M r. Mecenas put M r. Fabbroni on speaker phone . H Slater — Larry, i f you do a perk test and the Health Department isn ' t there to observe, they' ll issue a permit for a septic system based on that? L Fab broni— That ' s correct , H Slater — I ' ve never heard of that . Maybe I ' m learning something_ Do you work for the Health Department? L Fab broni— I work with the Health Department on applications . Nonnally on a big subdivision you would get a health engineer out there, b u C on the individual ones, they can either send the sanatarians or the PE can do the perk test. W c did the perk test at any others that I ' ve done with the 'Health Department For the las ( 20 years, 1=l dater — 1 wasn ' t aware that they }would issue a pennit unless they were present to observe . I know you can do l.be actual test, but 1 didn' t understand that you actually have authority that can result in a permit for an individual system _ L Fabbroni — That ' s the case , anc3 T don ' t know that thiWve done that historically going back 5 years or more because they had the staff. but at the point when this became more of a burden on the department , the PEs are authorized to do the test. You can check with Maybee if you want the peace of ion ind on it all , Atty Marc Lis - I had never heard of It elther, 1 Goodrow — You did perk tests within each oFthe lots ? L Fabbroni— Yes . lfyou look at the drawings up close , you ' ll see little tiny squares on each lot and that ' s where we did the perk tests . Atty Marcus = So you actualIy did 3 on each lot_ L Fabbroni— That ' s correct . Aity Marcus — Larry, 1 don ' t know if you niight know this , . . Andy Sc1arraba at TG Miller wrote a letter to the Board a couple days ago responding to your engineer ' s report, and he raises this question about whether it would be permissible to develop the septic system within that bIY E transmission right- of way . 1 said to Mark a little earlier that without looking at the actual easerient. it' s impossible to know whether anything ' s allowed to be done within the right-of- way. Some of them al low anything, some of them have restrictions . I notice no,�v that you point Z-BA 02 -06-2007 Page 9 of 34 out those squares where you did the perk test on Lot 3 , they ' re a] 1 outside the NYS EG right-ol= ay. L Fab broni— That ' s correct . We don ' t awcipate any improvements within that right-of-way , Worse case, 20 years from now , if they need a replacement area, although that lowest one, J wanna tell you that lowest one was the best perk test ironically, but let ' s say 20 years out they need a replacement system , there ' s nothing to prcvent them froni puniping over to that triangle of ] and on the other side of the right-of way in order to use the space . The way i understand the easement itjust precludes them .From doing anything within that right-o.f.- way , but the improvements that we show them for this initial stage, there are no improvements within that right-o f-v� ay. Atty M.arcus — OK. That ' s what we %Pere we rid e» rig about exactly , P Lutwak - Oan vve move on to point E ? KeIemen — Are we happy with ? J Ooodrow — I think we ' re happy with the (Health Departincnt) permit issue_ T Quinn - I would like to see that opinion in a letter from the Board of Health based on Larr ' s statement_ ttv Marcus - liven in Larry ' s letter, he says at the end of the septic system section , he ' s referring to the tests . This meets the norms c) F the Tompkins Oouuty health Department, but any approval you might consider for the proposed layout should lac conditioned on final approval by the THD . So Larry 15 saying in his submission that you should get what we ' ve just requested , L Fabbroni— The drawing still needs to be approved by the Health Department, but it seems a little cart before tbh 3 horse before you folks — 1 ' m telling you the feasibility r ow to do that, but it seemed a little cart before the horse to go through the whole exercise and come back with approval for lots that we didn ' t even know if you would consi &Tr P i.utwak — I think it ' s more a matter oCfjnding out that the Health Department will agree with your findings . Will accept them rather than requiring another test at a later date in order to get a pen-nit . S o yoLl submit test results and T HD issues perniit? L Fabbroni— Wet ] , if you conditioned your approval on that, i think that ' s a reasonable posture to take at this point . M Mecenas — In the 5 questions they asked in the October mineting, there ' s a Federal W et lands question , same delineation apparently they wanted done . Do you recall ? Did you address that someplace in the application ? L Fab broni— in my report, I said initially that the question that came from the Environmental l ngineer was about the area to the east and whether it encroached intro the 1and or the area where ZBA 0246-2007 Page 10 of 34 ® the driveway was started . I said in my observation, when I did the survey, there was a survey pin at the southeast corner of the lot that fronts on Snyder Hill Road and there ' s no evidence that the wetland came that far west into the property in question . In other words, there is a wetland east of this property, but there was no evidence, there was no inundation, at that point there ' s not the wetland plants , there ' s no sign that there was a wetland where the driveway now exists on the east edge of that property that fronts on Snyder Hill Road and there ' s absolutely no wetland in the area of these lots that we submitted for approval . There is a wet area way down in the southwest corner of this 5 + acre parcel , but it ' s way in the rear of any improvement that we intend to do , so it seems a little meaningless to commission a delineation when there ' s no question as you walk the land, you can see yourself there is no wetland in the area that we would improve for the lots or even the yards around the houses . P Lutwak — I don ' t know if that would be acceptable. If you walk the property right now (in mid- winter) , you wouldn ' t see a wetland . L Fabbroni— You would see wetland plants anyway . Whether the water table was as high as it would be typically in April or in May is when we ' ll see the highest water table in the wetlands, but you would see the evidence of the plants at the time we looked at it — there was no snow cover. H Slater — Did you see the property before the driveway was installed? L Fabbroni— I had been up there doing a survey, but I wasn ' t there when the driveway went in . H Slater — How deep is the till in the driveway? L Fabbroni— It ' s approximately a foot and a half where it goes through the lot that fronts on Snyder Hill Road , H Slater — So would the plant life that would be typical to a wetland have come through that foot of fill or would it still be buried underneath it i f it exists? L Fabbroni— I would say it would be buried underneath there, if there was any. H Slater — Thank you . And in his defense, he could fill a . l of an acre without even talking to the Army Corps , in any event. But I doubt that it ' s more than . l of an acre that they would have filled based on that picture. L Fabbroni— No . The wetland is on the area to the east. I ' m very familiar with that property because 1 was involved in the big project that the Varns proposed back in the late 80 ' s and that ' s where the wetlands is . P Lutwak — I was looking at one of these pictures that says unusable parcel , wetland at 389 Snyder Hill . I think that ' s behind the other houses . That triangle . ® H Slater — It ' s the wetland that Larry ' s talking about to the east — that ' s where the driveway is. i ZBA 02-0&2007 Page l l of 34 P i�utwak — .Ri ht But this picture here shows it here. g H Slater — Right. But he ' s not proposing any improvements to that area. In a Federal wetland, i believe you just have to stay out of it . Right, Larry? There ' s no distance separation '? L. Fabbroni— Right. He ' s referring to the very southwest corner of this property there ' s a wet area. It can ' t be more than 75 ' by 75 ' and it ' s way down in the southwest corner. H Slater — I wrote the 389 on there as a potential address . Oers Kelemen — What brought the issue of wetland up? P Luhvak — The fact that the map that was submitted said wetland with a big circle that overlapped the driveway area. But if he just said you can fill in . l of an acre, that driveway ' s not more than . l of an acre . D Sprout — I guess I ' d still like to see the actual permit . Oers Kelemen — We can talk about that when we get to conditions . ® P Lutwak — So what ' s before us? The shrinkage of a non-conforming lot, correct? Oers Kelemen — The shrinkage of a non-confon-ring lot by 20 ' . What is it? 96 to 76 ? ZBA — 90 ' to 70 ' . H Slater — i can verify that . Oers Kelemen — Any other questions by the Board ? ZBA — Not at this time. Oers Kelemen — I ' m going to close the public portion of the hearing unless there are some last minute comments . H Slater — 90 ' to 70 ' on the frontage and it ' s diminishing the lot area from roughly .48 AC to . 36 AC . M Mecenas — I just want to point out that by going to 70 ' of frontage, we ' re actually bringing this property more in line with other properties immediately to the west, we ' re not really changing the character. Here there are 4 buildings on about an acre, and what asking to do is put 1 building on l acre . ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 12 of 34 ® Discussion of acreage listed on the map for 387 Snyder Hill Road . The map says . 84 AC . It should be listed as . 48 AC . The numbers are transposed . The assessment department records state . 48 AC as well . if you do the math with the stated dimensions, . 84 can ' t be right . Atty Marcus — All of the maps , for some reason , seem to have a typographical error in regards to 387 Snyder Hill Road . They all say . 84 acres. But it must be that the numbers are transposed and it should say . 48 acres . That ' s what it states on the Assessment Department ' s records , but more importantly, because the Assessment Department can be as wrong as anyone , the dimensions bear that out. It ' s 90 ' frontage at the front and spreads out to 104 ' on the back end, but it ' s only a little over 200 ' deep, so it has to be less than % an acre. Just for the Board ' s reference, you ' re talking about a lot that is roughly '/1 an acre and you ' re slicing off 20%, about a tenth of an acre . H Slater — That ' s not the only one on there . This map was originally done in October or November 2006 and revised in January. You ' ll also note that the revised date says January 2006 , but they really meant 2007 . Atty Marcus — If you close it, and you still have further questions , you still have the authority to ask the applicant or members of the public for more infonhhation . O Kelemen — For some reason we ' ve been closing them , and I ' m not sure what that reason was . Atty Marcus — It lops off any further comment, and that' s the main reason to close it. Once you ' ve closed it, people can ' t talk. Oers Kelemen — Consensus of the Board — would you like to close the public hearing or leave it open? The consensus was to leave it open . Discussion of items on Area Variance forms . See Notice of Decision for 387 Snyder Dill Road . H Slater: This is the same application from October. The other 3 are new because they are different configurations of lots. Area Variance —387 Snvder Hill Road . 69 .-2 - 18 Oers Kelemen : reading item A of the Area Variance form : 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 : T Quinn — We ' ve heard from a lot of the neighbors that they feel it would be a detriment to the property. P Lutwak — It ' s al I basically occurred though because the driveway is there . It ' s already ® established . The variance doesn ' t change that . ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 13 of 34 J Goodrow - As Mr. Macenas pointed out., by granting the variance , it ' s going to be more like the rest of the neighborhood anyway. It ' s not such a big change. I think if the lot size is diminished , it doesn ' t change the character of the neighborhood . Atty Marcus — If you ' re looking for a finding of fact on that point, and I ' m just throwing out possibilities, not coming down on one side or the other, it sounds like what you ' re saying in fact- finding is that other lots in the vicinity of this lot have as little or less road frontage. P Lutwak — We can see that on the maps we have here. D Sprout — They ' re just one side of the road . Atty Marcus — That ' s a reasonable thing to list . D Sprout — I think a majority of the public comment refers more to the property behind the property in question , and not 387 Snyder Hill Road . P Lutwak — We need to keep each other on just this one piece of property. 0 Kelcmen — Does anyone have any negative comment about A ? Atty Marcus — It' s not a question of negative comment, it a question of coming up with some findings of fact . 0 Kelemen — Does anyone have any findings of fact? P Lutwak — If you look at the map, at the nearby lots T Quinn — I would have to say no . Atty Marcus — Your goal is not to say yes or no , your goal is to come up with findings of fact that deal with this question . That' s why I threw out one suggestion . There ' s probably a number of other things you could pull from all the information you ' ve received . As I pointed out, he ' s slicing 20 ' off this property. What impact does that have? It leaves you with a lot that' s now 70 , instead of 90 ' . 1t seemed to be pointed out that that is no less than a number of other lots in the immediate area . That ' s a fact . Another point that was sort of hinted at was that this property, this parcel , is slightly less than % an acre and you ' re considering slicing 20 % of that off, so you end Lip with whatever the map works out to , . 36 acres , and it was hinted that several of the other lots in the area, in the immediate vicinity, are as small or smaller than that in area. So that ' s another statement of fact that might be relevant to your decision . It might not be. Again , just throwing out possibilities that describe the points. H Slater — it does not create a setback violation . The new side lot does not create a situation where the house no longer has an inadequate set back . ZBA 02A6=2007 Page 14 of 34 Atty Marcus — The new side line is not close enough to the improvements that it ' s deficient in that regard . The only deficiency is with the road frontage . And maybe that ' s another statement of fact that ' s worth your consideration . The only greater deficiency, the only greater non- conformity is with regard to road frontage . H Slater — There I s only one structure. Discussion of what is on the property in regards to type and number of buildings and size of driveway . O Kelemen — So we find it does impact the road frontage and the square footage, the area, of the lot. It does not impact the side setbacks . it ' s not different from other properties in the area. H Slater — Another one I might put in there is that there is not currently a neighbor on the east side, and the likelihood of one being there because of the wetland is highly unlikely . P Lutwak — There are houses on each of the properties to the west? H Slater — That ' s correct . T Quinn — The Board finds that there are several properties of similar or smaller frontage ® adjacent to this one. Atty Marcus — The only change I would make to that is to say in the vicinity instead of adjacent . T Quinn — OK . P Lutwak — We ' re also talking about area. Frontage and lot area. T Quinn — But the application was for frontage . H Slater — it ' s for both . T Quinn — OK. Frontage and area . O K.elemen — 1 agree . That ' s a valid point. This is the easternmost property and to the east of it, there is a wetland , so the likelihood of future development of that area is very remote. ZBA — We can just list these, right? Atty Marcus — Yes . Oers Kelemen — Is it worth mentioning, is it fit here , to indicate this 20 ' will be used for driveway — you don ' t see that as having any affect on either water or drainage . »;A 02-06-2007 Page 15 of 34 ® Atty Marcus — It ' s a valid point. It ' s up to you guys whether or not you want to list that . You ' re talking about diminishing the size of the lot and if you feel that it ' s useful to say that what you ' re doing with the piece sliced off is basically a driveway as opposed to another house or a new garage or something that you guys have looked at before, it ' s not going to involve above grade improvements. If you want a sweeping statement, the result of slicing this off is grade level improvement, not above grade improvement . P Lutwak — And lie already has the permit and the driveway there. Atty Marcus — Which might be even more of a relevant point. ZBA — Can we make a condition that the driveway not be paved ? Or be something impermeable . Atty Marcus — You can . It ' s within your authority to make conditions like that, but you should have some basis for making them . You could make it a recommendation also . O Kelemen — The only point, in addition to the points you ' ve made, is that the driveway won ' t change things , plus it ' s already got a permit. I think that ' s the only addition to what you had . Motion by Oers Kelemen : Item A : The Board finds that there several properties of similar or smaller frontage and area in the vicinity. This is the eastern most property. The adjoining land farther east is undeveloped , nor likely to be developed , because of the presence of a wetland . The existing use of the 20 ' is as a driveway for which a pen-nit has already been issued . H Slater — It is the most easterly developed property . ZBA — I would like to add something about neighbor ' s concerns . T Quinn — Do we have to say that? ZBA — i just feel like we should . T Quinn — We could acknowledge it. We could say the Board acknowledges the stated concerns of the neighbors . O Kelemen — I want to better understand this 10 ' view . Does that mean if I ' m in the driveway looking east, i only have 10 ' of road that I can see . Is that what that means? Atty Marcus — Where does the 10 ' come from ? O Kelemen — It ' s in one of the letters or reports that I read . I believe it was `I'G Miller ' s report . They mentioned sight distance. ® Discussion of Driveway Permit process uld the criteria for approving a driveway permit . No one was quite sure of the details and .lack Bush, Highway Superintendent, was not in attendance. ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 16 of 34 Amended motion by Oers Kelemen : Item A : The Board finds that there several properties of similar or smaller frontage and area in the vicinity. This is the eastern most property. The adjoining land farther east is undeveloped , nor likely to be developed , because of the presence of a wetland . The existing use of the 20 ' is as a driveway for which a permit has already been issued . The Board acknowledges the stated concerns of the neighbors. Seconded by T Quinn . All voted in favor. Motion passed . O Kelemen — The second item , whether the benefits can be achieved by some other method , feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance P Lutwak — He can grant himself an easement. Atty Marcus — If you begin to say that, you need to also state that the applicant would need a different variance . O Kelemen — is the land to your east purchasable? M Mecenas — Most definitely not. H Slater — It ' s also a wetland . M Mecenas — I ' m making a certain assumption, but based on the Young ' s letter, I don ' t think they would be open to that suggestion . O Kelemen — An alternate was would be . . . H Slater — Tear down the house and create a public highway. P Lutwak — But you would still need a variance . H Slater — For what? P Lutwak — Oh . A public road . OK.. T Quinn — it would have to go somewhere . H Slater — It would go to those 3 lots . But the town is not really interested in maintaining a road that only goes to 3 houses . Atty Marcus — That ' s another point you may want to include as a finding of fact . O Kelemen — Or a public road . Create? Is that the right word for a public road ? ® H Slater — You originally wanted to build a road , right? GBA 02-06-2007 Page 17 of 34 M Mecenas — 'That was a suggestion , and Jack was not receptive at all . (Referring to Jack Bush, Highway Superintendent . ) 0 Kelemen — Grant right-of-way or build and dedicate a public road , each alternative of which is subject to further review and approval? I don ' t know the road process . Atty Marcus — I think the point on the road process is that the town doesn ' t want it. 0 Kelemen — Does it matter? ratty Marcus — Yes, because he wouldn ' t be allowed to do it if the town wouldn ' t approve it . 0 Kelemen — I-le could build his own road, but the town wouldn ' t accept it . .Atty Marcus — What Mark (Mecenas) has said, and what Henry has contimied , is that the Town Superintendent of Highways did not want a public road that served only 3 parcels, and I find that very easy to believe because I don ' t know of any municipality that would want to maintain a public road that only served 3 parcels . 0 Kelemen — What if he says, " I don ' t care if the town wants it . I want to build it anyway. " ® H Slater — Then it' s a driveway, so it ' s not a road for public use, and it doesn ' t help him meet the road frontage criteria. ratty Marcus — He could build a road , he could build a 60 ' road right through the middle of that parcel , and the town can say, "We don ' t want it . It ' s a nice road . Enjoy it . " In any event, in regard to what you wrote, there are really two (2 ) different tie ins . 1 . Tile granting of a right-of wav which would require a different variance and 2 . The development of a public road , which would not be accepted for dedication by the town , according to the town ' s official , so neither would be feasible. 0 Kelemen — OK . So I have three points . He can grant a right-of-way as an alternative . He can build and dedicate a public road to the town , but the town would not accept it. Purchase of hold to the east is not feasible. ratty Marcus — Which is unlikely (to happen) and wouldn ' t enable development of a road because it ' s a wetland . 0 Kelemen — But he could meet the frontage requirements by doing that, couldn ' t he? H Slater — He wouldn ' t have to further diminish this parcel . T Quinn — Do we even have to bring that up? ZBA — No . ZRA 02-06-2007 Page 18 of 34 O Kelemen — It ' s reasonable to bring up the easement . It ' s reasonable to bring up a public road . ZBA — None of which are viable options . 0 Kelemen —The applicant could : 1 . The owner could grant an casement for a right-of-way; 2 . Or build and dedicate a public road ; 3 . Or purchase land to the east . None of which are viable options . Do we indicate why they are not viable'' P Lutwak — Well , the easement is viable, it just means another application . Those kind of things should be separated out. The easement is a viable solution , it just means a different appliction . The buying of more property or doing a public road are not feasible . Atty Marcus — Requested verbatim minutes . . . prior to the Recording Secretary condensing them . P Lutwak — I think we ' re going to get in the verbiage right here . Even what we said there is too much . The only viable option is to grant an easement. The others are not viable options . Atty Marcus — You have a couple of very clear, directly on point findings , that will keep you on i much firmer ground if you include them . My goal is to keep you from being sued . The last time this was being considered , you had about 20 people here who were railing against this . When you have 20 people railing against something, and they all shell S200 into a hat, it ' s pretty easy for them to sue the Zoning Board . I know you guys haven ' t experienced it, but the way to defend yourselves is to have findings that clearly establish that you ' ve considered the whole picture. T Quinn — OK. My motion is : 1 . The owner could grant an easement , which would lead to a different. variance application ; 2 . Or build and dedicate a public road that the Town would not accept; 3 . Or pursue purchase of land to the east, which is unlikely to be sold and is a protected wetland . D Sprout — If he was able to purchase those lands , would he still needs a variance? Atty Marcus — He would have to purchase up to the minimum 125 ' and he ' s already at 90 ' . D Sprout — I ' m sa}ring, if the Youngs would sell it to him , he wouldn ' t need the variance, right? Atty Marcus — He wouldn ' t need to do anything to this parcel . .He could leave it just the way it is and use the frontage for the other parcels . P Lutwalc — I second the motion . ZBA 0246-2007 Page 19 of 34 O Kelemen — called for a vote . All are in favor. Motion passed . O Kelemen — In considering whether the requested area variance is substantial , the ZBA finds as follows : P LUtivak — It ' s 20% . T Quinn — Yes . It is a reduction by 20% of a non-conforming lot. The 20% refers to road frontage. O Kelemen — I believe it ' s actually 23 %. P Lutwak — It ' s road frontage and lot size . T Quinn — OK . Motion is : Yes . It ' s a 22% reduction in area and road frontage off an already non-conforming lot . Motion seconded by J Goodrow . All in favor. Motion passed . O Kelemen — Will this variance have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district . H Slater — You better mention that they ' ve already filled a minor portion of that wet area and it appears that that is acceptable because it also appears to be less than . 1 of an acre , which requires llo permit . P Lutwak — According to the maps, the driveway is on the wetland . T Quinn — Do we need to address that in this next line? Atty Marcus — You should . I-1 Slater — And they ' ve already built the driveway. You ' re taking no responsibility for making that decision because it ' s already made . You ' re acknowledging the requirement . P Lutwak — Because when you granted the pen-nit for the driveway, you must have acknowledged at that point that they were filling in a bit of a wetland too . H Slater — You would have to ask Jack (Bush , Highway Superintendent) . The wet area is back 30 or 40 feet, so I don ' t know if it would have been a consideration . P Lutwak — The culvert and all that has been put in already by the Town? ® Yes . ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 20 of 34 'I' Quinn — Permit has been granted and construction begun on the driveway that infringes the boundary of a wetland . Atty Marcus — that may lie in part within a map of a wetland, but would not exceed the . l acre threshold H Slater — right - . l of an acre threshold requiring Army Corps of Engineers permit . P Luhvak — We should say probably not. H Slater — I said may. T Quinn — Do I have to say . l of an acre? H Slater / Atty Marcus — Yes . Because that ' s the threshold . D Sprout - No evidence of a wetland encroaching on the area in question . Atty Marcus — You could put that in too . T Quinn — Motion : Permit has been granted and some construction begun on the driveway that may infringe the boundary of a wetland but would not violate the . 1 acre threshold requiring Army Corps of Engineers permit authorization . D Sprout — I think we should include Fabbroni ' s statement that says the wetland isn ' t being encroached. J Goodrow — The word may, I think, addresses both points . O Kelemen — Do we have a second? J Goodrow seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion passed . O Kelemen — Is the alleged difficulty self-created ? T Quinn / P LUtwak — Yes . O Kelemen — I do have a question . How long ago did you buy the property? i\11 Mecenas — In the late ` 94s, maybe ' 98 . 1 would have to look it up . Which property are we talking about? O Kelemen — I ' m talking about the house property. M Mecenas — A year and a half ago . zBA 02-06-2007 Page 21 of 34 0 Kelemen — Now, you ' re a developer and have a real estate background . Did you buy it with the intent of doing that'? It would seem that you probably did . M Mecenas — I was approached, you have to know the tenant 1 previous owner. He ' s on disability and I had originally just talked to him about having a right-of-way. l e actually asked me, I ' ll give you the right-of--way, because that ' s why I thought this whole question about an casement vs . owning it or. whatever . . . 0 Kelemen — You already owned the other property'? M Mecenas — I already owned the other property in back, and I wanted an easement to get back there and he said , "No problem . " And I paid him something for the easement. And then he was having some health issues and is now on disability, and he asked if I would consider buying the property from him . He was having trouble paying the taxes and so forth , and lie just wanted me to let him live there and not have to worry about the taxes . I really thought I had my problem solved with him giving me an easement right-of=way across his property . I was really planning on pursuing it that way. That ' s why I was confused here tonight, because that ' s the way I' ve been thinking the whole way. And he was very nice about it and gave me the easement, so when he asked me if I could help him out with his financial situation, he has about $4000 in back taxes, as long as he could continue to live there, that was his big thing. He wants to be able to stay there since he inherited the house from his parents and grew up there and the whole bit . That was really, I didn ' t really buy the house thinking — I didn ' t really think I needed to buy the house to develop the back acreage as long as I could buy an casement to get to the back. T Quinn — And you have some kind of contract with him on that? M Mecenas — Yes . I have a contract . It ' s very simple. I provide him with life use of the property. As I think you saw from Kevin ' s letter, he just wants to be left alone and live as lie ' s always lived and being on disabllity, he doesn' t have a lot of money, and the taxes — as dilapitated as the house is, the assessment on the thing is like 560,000 or whatever. 0 Kelemen — So was it self-created ? T Quinn — Absolutely. I don ' t think we need to say anything more on that one . 0 Kelemen — Motion to say yes . D Sprout seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion passed . 0 Kelemen — We don ' t need more than a yes , riglit? Atty Marcus — Right . It ' s Fine like that . H Slater — it ' s exempt from SCQR 239 L&M , SEQR 6I 7 . 5 (c) 12 & 13 . 1.0 0 Kelemen — Would someone move that we are in fact . . . ZBA 0246-2007 Page 22 of 34 Atty Marcus — It doesn ' t need a motion . Just a statement of fact. O .Kelemen — Now the overall . Does anyone have a motion about accepting or rejecting the variance as applied for — for 20 ' . . 1 ? D Sprout — I move we approve the variance with conditions. H Slater — What conditions? D Sprout — Silt fence being put up and care taken to take care of the driveway. Or is that separate from this one? H Slater — You can save that for the other ones . The driveway goes with the other parcels. P Lutrivak — And the driveway is already built. O Kelemen — Weren ' t we waiting for something frorn the Health Department? H Slater — That applies to the other ones as well . Atty Marcus — The only thing you ' ve mentioned that had to do with the driveway that you didn ' t have was any response regarding sight distance . The engineer originally asked about it, it wasn' t responded to in the letter from today . H Slater — You could still save that because the back lots are the ones that are going to be affected . P Lutwak — Isn ' t that something that would have been taken care of when the driveway permit was issued? H Slater — 1 don ' t know . I can tell you what the State of New York would use . 0 Kelemen — But the Town doesn ' t necessarily apply the same rule. P Lutwak — I would like to save that for the back lots. This variance really has nothing to do with it . D Sprout — I move that we approve the valiance . P Lutwak seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion passed . 5 minute break Oers Kelemen — In talking with the attorney, it makes most sense to loot: at one of these properties since they are all very similar in size and topography and then build on the first one ZBA 0246-2007 Page 23 of 34 and note any changes from the first one, if that ' s acceptable. (Members indicated it was. ) We ' ll look at the one closest to 387 labeled Lot 1 on this Variance Application Map — it is the northenlmost part of this property. This one needs road frontage. We ' ve now created road frontage, right? Area Variance — proposed 393 Snyder Hill Road (Lot 3) H Slater — We ' ve created upwards to 20 ' feet for one or all of these lots, collectively. Oers Kelemen — How do we split this frontage up ? Give each of them part of it? There was talk about a shared maintenance agreement . Atty Marcus — Usually the way you ' ve handled this before is that one of the flag lots has the flagpole and the others share the driveway. That ' s the typical arrangement. If you look carefully at Larry ' s map , it doesn ' t show which lot gets the 20 ' strip . P Luhvak — But doesn ' t it make sense then that the driveway should go all the way to the last lot so that it would be owned by the back lot . Atty Marcus — That would be the usual way, and then the others would tap into it . P Lutwak — So Lot 3 would have to get an easement from lot 2 and 1 to let them drive across their property. H Slater — Not necessarily . P Lutwak — You ' re assigning the driveway to lot 3 , then it ' s a shared driveway. h to run the property all the way back to Lot 3 . H Slater — i would suggest that you amend the map N M Y Y I P Lutwak — Make it clear that the strip belongs to Lot 3 . H Slater — Yes . Get rid of the need for easements . That just makes it messier. M Mecenas — I ' m not making history here . This has been done so many times all over the county. I think Henry has done this so much that: lie knows what works and what hasn ' t worked in the past . Just like I said an hour ago about the whole question on whether to do an easement or however you wanted to do this front lot, I ' ll just go with the flow . To me, the big picture here is so simple . . . it ' s not complicated . We ' re sort of trying to keep everything on the up and u p . Oers Kelemen — It may be simple to you , but the solution we ' re looking for is not the solution you proposed . That ' s why i need to know how you ' re doing this . M Mecenas — I was confused about the earlier one too, but what I have done in the past — what we. simply did — there was l owner and then a driveway maintenance agreement that was shared by whoever uses the driveway. That ' s what I ' ve done in the Town of Ithaca. rzBA 02 -0 &2007 Page 24 of 34 • Att Marcus — That ' s what was mentioned as being a potential condition in the October meeting Y g p b as well . -NI Meccnas — That ' s what I ' m accustomed to , but if here in the Town of Dryden . . . Atty Marcus — We ' re not suggesting anything di fferent . What we ' re focusing on is that the way Larry did the map , it doesn ' t show the 20 ' strip as being part of one of the lots . It shows it as being a separate piece on its own . M Mccenas — OK. That was probably ail oversight. I would propose we make it part of Lot 3 . So why don ' t we do Lot 3 first since that ' s the one that is going to get the driveway. Oers Kelemen — OK. Let ' s do Lot #3 , gentlemen . This driveway has to make the fire department happy, correct? Do these subdriveways have to also? Atty Marcus — Yes, but their driveways are this driveway. It ' s the same driveway for all 3 . H Slater — As long as they can turn around and get out, they' re happy. Oers Kelemen — Lot 3 is 1 . 8 acres. Any public input regarding lot 3 ? Chris Balback — 1 just wanted to reiterate the water concerns . Oers Kelemen — I think we all understand that, but that ' s not really within our purview right now because I think — correct me if I ' m wrong — we ' re looking at area considerations having to do with specifically meeting the requirement for driveway and meeting road frontage requirements . The front lot, in our view, met those revised requirements . We have sufficient driveway now, apparently, for these 3 properties , and that ' s what we look at . We don' t look at environmental items . Atty Marcus — Let me just jump in here . There is a concern of yours with environmental impact, but it ' s only relative to the area variance . it ' s only relative to the diminished frontage . The issues that you ' re talking about, or that that gentleman brought up, and that some of the letters referred to during some of the prior input has to do with whether or not this subdivision will be approved, not the variance . In your case, in the Town of Dryden , that goes to the Planning Board (PB) . The PB has consideration authority of the development of the property. But they can ' t consider the development of the property unless the applicant gets permission to diminish the road frontage. So this Board has a really narrow scope of authority. T Quinn — Can I express my concerns about those issues to the Planning Board ? That we ' re sensitive to those issues and we want them to take a good look at that ? Atty Marcus — Absolutely. ZBA 02-064007 Page 25 of 34 • Oers Kelemen — Now would that make sense to do it within one of the questions or several of them or to have a summary? Atty Marcus — it might be easier for you to do it as a summary at the end . If you think of things along the way, you want to set aside things for the summary, maybe you should ask the Recording Secretary to set aside that point under the heading of Zoning Board would like to call to the Planning Board ' s attention to : 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . . . that you come up with along the way that is separate from your decision . ZBA — Would that come as just a letter from the ZBA? Atty Marcus — Sometimes Planning Board ' s ask for it . P Lutwak — Is there a file or something physical that goes from here to the Planning Board ? H Slater — Anything connected with this variance relief P Lutwak — The whole file doesn ' t go, but there must be an official form that goes, correct? H Slater — Those things (referring to the ZBA file for this action) don ' t go , but the summary details of those things are contained in the summary decision . P Lutwak — Further down the road, i know there ' s a variance decision letter that you get in the mail . But will the Planning Board get all of the neighbor letters and everything? H Slater — If you want to make a request for me to do that, then they can . P Lutwak — i would like to ask for you to do that . H Slater — That ' ll help the neighbors from having to write in again . Anything you attach to the Notice of Decision or you direct me to give the Planning Board , is what I will give them . Oers Kelemen — OK, Lot #3 — the one with the long driveway. (Begins reading question A of the Area Variance form . . . ) In considering whether an undesirable change would be . . . Now again , we ' re talking specifically about reduced road frontage only. Atty Marcus — That ' s right. The only variance that ' s being requested for this property has to do with reduced road frontage. H Slater — Correct. Oers Kelemen — Would the reduced road frontage have any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties . Atty Marcus — In looking at the development of the lot, one thing that you would likely consider is the size of the lots. You ' re in a zoning district where the minimum lot size is 1 . 5 acres. You ' re ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 26 of 34 looking at, in the case of Lot 3 , 1 . 8 acres . it might be a relevant finding that the lot exceeds the mrnrrnum lot size for the zoning district. if you ' re considering the impact of allowing this lot to exist with only 20 ' of road frontage, one consideration could be that this lot is not deficient in acreage, it ' s actually larger than the minimum lot allowed in the zoning district . The development of this lot . . . if this lot had enough road frontage, there ' s nothing else about it that is even close to being an issue for the district requirements. T Quinn — Why is it important to point out that it ' s bigger? It meets all other requirements, short of frontage. Atty Marcus — That ' s maybe another way of saying the same thing. I ' m just thinking back to other occasions where you ' ve had virtually the same situation . I know you ' re not supposed to be relying on past decisions as precedent, but I ' m just saying byway of example , you ' ve had situations where somebody had a flag lot that was 2 or 3 or more acres , i don ' t remember the exact dimensions , and one of the things that you focused on was the fact that the lot is much larger than it need be for putting a house on it . There ' s been a lot of commentary and discussion along the way, both in October and earlier tonight, about this issue of density of development, and you ' re not increasing the allowable density, because your lot ' s bigger than what' s permitted anyway. I` m not trying to make an argument for the applicant, I ' m just suggesting facts that P Lutwak — that would appease the character of the neighborhood . The neighborhood is actually smaller lots. Atty Marcus — That ' s another way of saying it . Maybe that ' s even a stronger way of saying it . That most of the lots in the neighborhood are smaller. P Lutwak —So it ' s not an undesirable change. T Quirin — I ' m not seeing the necessity to put an explanation in there. All we need are the answers . It ' s straightforward . No, this particular variance is not going to create any difference other than the road frontages . What I wrote was , "No . The lot meets zoning in all other aspects other than road frontage. " O Kelemen — That sounds good to me. Atty Marcus — What I would say is that if you ' re going to say it that way, you ' ll probably want to add Paul ' s point, because it points out that most of the lots in the vicinity are smaller. T Quinn — This lot will be larger than existing lots in the zoning district, so therefore it will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood . Motion by P Lutwak - This lot will be larger than existing lots in the zoning district, so therefore it will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood , seconded by J Goodrow, all in favor. ® Oers Kelemen : Can the benefits be achieved by applicant by some other method ? No . ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 27 of 34 P Lutwak — There ' s 0 road frontage . Atty Marcus — You have the same options you had before . Oers Kelemen — The same as in A7 Atty Marcus — I don ' t mean before in this application ; in the prior variance . I don ' t have any problem with you making a reference to , " See findings in variance # 1 Item 2 , or however you guys designated it . H Slater — You can build a road . P Lutwak — With this specific lot, you can ' t build a road to it. You only have 20 ' . H Slater — You could if you gave 60 ' . P Lutwak But you only have 20 ' of road frontage . Atty Marcus — The question asks are there any alternatives . Before you were looking at a lot that was 90 ' and shrinking it to 70 ' . here you ' re looking at a lot that is starting out with only 20 ' . It ' s the same issue . To avoid the variance, you need 125 ' or a road that comes back that gives you 125 ' . H Slater — The same restrictions and limitations that you discussed in the first variance apply here . Atty Marcus — I honestly don ' t see any difference . J GoodroNv made a motion , "No . Please refer to findings in variance for 387 Item B , which was previously discussed tonight . " P Lutwak seconded . All voted in favor. Motion passed . O Kelemen — Considering whether the area variance requested was substantial . We find that it is substantial . There is an 84% variance being requested . J Goodrow made a motion , " Yes . It ' s only providing 20 ' where 125 ' are required . " Seconded by D Sprout . All voted in favor. Motion passed . O Kelemen - :In considering whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district . Tile variance being 125 ' down to 20 ' . ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 28 of 34 T Quinn — Is this where we can take note of the fact that if this variance is ranted , this lot will be developed and may affect the local water table? O Kelemen — As opposed to a laundry list at the end? Motion by P Lutwak — The granting of this variance would lead to more development, which could have an affect on the water table . J Goodrow seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion approved . O Kelemen — In finding whether Nis was self-created . . . yes . T Quinn — I ' ll make a motion to say yes . D Sprout seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion approved . O Kelemen — This variance is exempt under the same section as the previous variance tonight. Correct? Atty Marcus — Yes. ® O Kelemen — Any motion as to how we should consider this variance for Lot #V Granting or not granting? Conditions and concerns ? Atty Marcus — One that I ' ll remind you of is this question that came up about the limitations regarding the NYSEG right-of-way. When Larry was on the phone, he stated that they weren ' t going to intend on any development within the right-of-way. Looking at it further, the driveway will be in the right-of-way. As a condition, you ' ll probably want verification that the NYSEG easement terms will allow development of the driveway and any other improvements that are intended within that area . P Lutwak — Environmental easement conditions of the NYSEG right-of-way? Atty Marcus — I don ' t take pride in authorship , but i don ' t think it says quite the same thing . What I ' m saying is , you don ' t really care whether the applicant abides by all the conditions of the NYSEG easement . For the most part, the conditions of the NYSEG easement have no bearing on your decision . I ' m trying to be very specific to say that what you guys are interested in by allowing this lot to be shaped the way it is which is necessary for the driveway is that you get some verification that the terms of the NYSEG easement will allow development of the driveway as it ' s laid out and any other improvements that they intend to put within the easement . I ' m trying to be general so that it includes the septic if that were part of it. P Lutwak — Written verification of any development ® Atty Marcus — Verification that terms of the NYSEG easement will allow development of the driveway and any other improvements ZBA 02-064007 Page 29 of 34 ® 0 Kelemcn — Isnt that self-enforcing, though ? Atty Marcus — It is , in the sense that you would assume NTYSEG would stop them from doing something, but your grant of this casement is dependent up on the driveway being in that location . If the driveway can ' t be in that location , the easement isn ' t going to be valid . You ' re basically telling the applicant they can do something that he can ' t do. I ' m trying to leave it open so that if he can ' t do that, he can come back and ask for a reconfiguration . O Kclemen — By granting the variance, we don ' t guarantee that they can do it . We don ' t know what ' s coming down the road . We don ' t know who might regulate it. Isn ' t that what we always do? It ' s their lookout? We give you no guarantees other than the fact that we ' re giving the variance . I ' m not tr}ping to argue with you . J Goodrow — I think it ' s important to note, because the way it ' s drawn , it ' s in the right-of-way . P Lutwak - . . . as long as it ' s allowed by NYSEG ? I ' m still not sure I ' m grasping what you want us to say . Atty Marcus — No , you got it, but I ' m — that ' s another way of saying it, I guess . P Lutivak — This variance is contingent upon written verification that any development will be ® allowed by the NYSEG easement . Atty Marcus — I hate to be technical here , but the word we ' re looking for here is condition, not contingent . We ' re laying out conditions . I guess what you ' re looking for is something shorter than what I said before. P Lutwak — Yes . More concise. H Slater — And restrict it to that casement area. Not any development. Atty Marcus — You want confirmation that the applicant can develop the driveway within the NYSEG easement shown on the subdivision plat. T Quinn — The owner must verify that the driveway and subsequent development will be allowed within the NYSEG right-of- way. O Kelemen — Please say provide verification . T Quinn — Provide is implied . H Slater — No . That isn ' t what you said . T Quinn — One condition will be that the owner must provide verification that the driveway and subsequent development will be allowed within the NYSEG right-of=way. ZBA 02-06-2007 Page 30 of 34 ® P Lutwak seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion approved . ZBA — Do we need any others? Yes. There are a few more . Certainly the Health Department has to approve the septic . That will be under the Planning Board with the subdivision part. That ' s a building permit also . H Slater — What you could do is just say that the applicant will comply with all the jurisdictional authority requirements . Then you ' ve got them all covered . T Quinn — Motion that another condition is that applicant comply with all other jurisdictional requirements . J Goodrow seconded . the motion . All voted in favor. Motion approved . Atty Marcus — Another that you mentioned earlier is the need for approval of a shared driveway agreement among any other lots. What you have done in the past is you would have me review and approve an agreement that is going to go of record binding on the three lots that explains who is responsible for maintenance of the driveway and who is responsible for the costs . H Slater — And it has to be a driveway approved by the fire chief in jurisdiction of authority. 0 Kelemen — That ' s jurisdictional authority and covered in what we said earlier, isn ' t it? H Slater — The driveway doesn ' t require special treatment from anybody unless you require it . P Lutwak — That ' s a separate condition, though . H Slater — I just didn ' t want you to forget it . T Quinn — The applicant must submit a shared driveway agreement to the Town ZBA Attorney for approval . Discussion regarding which fire chief has authority — Varna? Will just list, " lire chief with jurisdictional authority. " Atty Marcus — Do you want to make it a condition that you have to get more information about the sight distance that was mentioned . He said he was having Larry — or Larry hadn ' t gotten around to providing. 0 Kelemen — Wouldn ' t that be a Planning Board thing? H Slater — It will be if you ask them to . You ' ve already granted the road cut, so will they be looking at that? I doubt it . ® P Lutwak — That can be one of our concerns . ZBA 02 -06-2007 Page 31 at' 34 ® 0 Kelemen — Was that a concern that springs out of the frontage question? Or is that just something that ' s there anyway`: Atty Marcus — it does in some ways . If you want to say it ' s a concern of yours , then tell them . J Goodrow — Wouldn ' t the town deny the driveway permit if that ' s a concern? P Lutwak — Someone asked that question of Henry and I think what lie said was, that' s not necessarily what Jack is thinking about when he grants the driveway permit . He ' s more thinking about whether or not. hi Slater — I think he does, but I don ' t luiow for sure , because he doesn ' t need my approval to do it, so I' m not involved in that process . 1 just get it from him . P Lutwak — I think you ' re right — that ' s what we hope he does. I think that ' s kind of an important part of where a driveway goes . 'I' Quinn — Let ' s just make it a concern and address it to the Planning Board . P Lutwak — So we have 4 concerns right now? 0 Kelemen — We have 4 conditions . 1 . The applicant must submit verification that the driveway and subsequent development will be allowed within the NIYSL"G right-of--way . 2 . The applicant must submit a shared driveway agreement to the Town ZBA Attorney for approval . 3 . The applicant must comply with all other jurisdictional requirements . 4. The driveway must be approved by the fire chief with jurisdictional authority. Discussion regarding some of the environmental issues that have come up . It was stated that these are items that the Planning :Board must look at when deciding whether to grant Subdivision Approval . 0 Kelemen — Anyone want to make a motion on how we act on this and concerns kind of come as a separate item subsequent to approval . P Lutwak made a motion to approve the variance with the 4 conditions as stated . T Quinn seconded the motion . All voted in favor. The motion passed . P Lutwak — Can we do the other variances and read them in and just say, see — based on the previous . . . Atty Marcus — Yes . You can just refer to the findings in the other variances like with that one earlier. Z-BA 02-06-2007 Page 32 of 34 H. Slater — There ' s just one minor difference here. With these two (Lots 1 & 2 ) , you ' re applying 280(a) as well as 702, because they have no frontage. It ' s the same issue, but you have to add 280(a) in here as well as 702 . J Goodrow — So the assumption there is that Lot 3 has the driveway and that the others share it. H Slater — Right . They share it by maintenance agreement. P Lut%vak — So Lot #3 is 720'? H Slater — The Town requirement is 702 . 2 . In addition to that is Town Law 280(a), a requirement of a minimum of 15 ' for emergency ingress and egress . An easement doesn ' t count . That ' s why you have to include both . P Lutwak — So except for a few places where we ' re changing the numbers , they' re the same . O Kelemen — If we all agree that the numbers are the only di fference . Can we do that? Atty Marcus — You can do that , .1 think what Henry ' s really focusing on is that when you get to the grant, you ' re granting a variance to both the Town Law and the State Law . H Slater — Right . O Kelemen — How involved do we have to get with each, Randy'? Can we just say, "Yeah , what we said before? " Atty Marcus — if you want to adopt the findings, lock, stock and barrel , from the prior variance as being applicable here, I would just say to add that you recognize that in this case (lots I & 2) the frontage is 0 ' and this is going to rely on a shared easement for driveway. Try and keep it short. The ZBA recognizes that this variance has 0 ' , under the 20 ' . 1 don ' t need to dictate. If you want to just run with it, go ahead . Area Variance — proposed 391 Snyder 111111 Road (Lot 2) P Lutwak — We grant this variance based on the findings of the Lot 3 variance, recognizing that this variance is for 0 ' lot frontage and is subject to , which law? Atty Marcus — What 1 see you doing is adopting 3 separate motions. One to adopt the findings of the previous variance application as being applicable to this variance application . The second motion is the one you just read, and the third one is that you ' re granting a variance to NYS Town Law 280(a) with regarding to 0 ' frontage where the minimum required is 15 " P Lutwak — We want to grant a variance to Town Law 280(a) noting that this lot has 0 ' frontage where 15 ' is required . 40 0 Kelemen — What ' s the other one? isn ' t there another section as well '? GBA 02-06-2007 Page 33 of 34 Atty Marcus — That ' s already in there - you ' re just adding the 280 (a) . J Goodrow — Just another technicality — we should note that Lot 1 does not have any NYSEG right-of- way. Only Lots 2 & 3 do . it depends on where they put their sub -driveway. Motion by P Lutwak : We adopt the previous findings from Lot 3 to Lot 2 , recognizing that the variance is for 0 ' lot frontage for lot 2 . Seconded by T Quinn . All voted in favor. Motion passed . Motion by P Lutwak : We grant this variance based on the previous findings in Lot 3 recognizing that the variance is for 0 ' lot frontage for lot 2 . Seconded by T Quir-n . All voted in favor. Motion passed . P Lut%vak — Motion : We grant a variance to Town Law 280(a) in regards to the lot having 0 ' where 15 ' is the minimum . Seconded by D Sprout. All voted in favor. Motion passed . Motion by P Lutwak : Amend the prior motion to say we adopt the previous findings and conditions from Lot 3 . Seconded by D Sprout . All voted in favor. Motion passed . I Area Variance — proposed 389 Snyder Hill Road (Lot 11 0 Kelemen — We have to approve # 1 now . Does anyone see any difference between the fact that the other 2 lots are not adjoining anything meaningful and this one does? I personally don ' t. Does anyone else? It borders on someone else ' s property where the others don ' t. T Quinn — I don ' t see it being an issue, maybe a concern . 0 Kelemen — Can we just adopt #2 in its totality for 0 since they are identical ? Atty Marcus — You still have to do 3 motions . 1 is to adopt the findings, 2 is to make a decision on the variance, 3 is to make a decision on the State Law variance. P Lutwak — Motion : We adopt the findings for Lot 3 to the findings consideration of Lot 1 . Second by T Quinn . All voted in favor. Motion passed . P Lutwak — Motion : We grant this variance based on the previous findings and conditions for Lot 3 recognizing that the variance is for 0 ' frontage for Lot 1 . ZBA OM6-2007 Pate 34 of 34 Atty Marcus — You probably want to say, excluding the requirements regarding the NYSEG easement because they don ' t apply. P Lutwak — Continuation of motion : excluding the condition addressing the NYSEG easement. J Goodrow seconded the motion . All voted in favor. Motion approved . P Lutwak — Motion : We grant a variance to Town Law 280(a) regarding the lot having 0 ' frontage where 15 ' is the minimum . D Sprout seconded the motion . All in favor. Motion approved . 0 Kelemen — How about concerns ? 1 . Neighbors letters 2 . Sight distance 3 . Water Table 4 . DEC concerns 5 . Lot 1 being near other dwellings 6 . Stormwater 7 . Testimony provided at the October meeting 8 . Correspondence from 1 /24 and 2/6 T Quinn — How are we going to convey this to the Planning Board? Are we going to write them a letter? Atty Marcus — If you want to simplify this so that there is no extra work , you can simply move that the Code officer, when he delivers the Notice of Decision to the Planning Board, that he include the items you listed and call their attention to these other issues . There ' s no necessity for a separate letter to be written . Henry will already be writing them a letter that says, Here ' s the variance . H Slater — Right . They have to have some authority to consider a subdivision with these diminished frontages . Atty Marcus — What you want to do is have Henry include with his letter copies of these items and a list of concerns . Proposed Local haw Conimissiou 0 Kelemen — We have been asked to provide 2 people to this local law commission . D Sprout has indicated he could be on that. T Quirui just joined the Youth Commission , so he is no longer available . Meeting was adjourned at 11 : 00 pm . Respectfully Submitted , Patty Millard , ZBA Recording Secretary