Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-01 TOWN OF DRYDEN boning Board of Appeals May 1 , 2007 Members Present: Ders Kelcmen, Chair; Jolui oodroNV ; Paul Lut%v4k ; Thomas Quinn ; David Sprout, Others Present: Randy Marcus , Town ZSA Attorney - Henry Slater, Director of Zoning Code Eriforeemcnt ; Patty Millard , Rt cording Secretary . A 1PL1 icapits : Holoerard Murphy , Richard Waw k; Town Residents ; C; ary & Deborah ' lCviil ] arn, Pierce Bramham , Viesia Liftman Meeting called to order at 7 - 30 PM . Agenda : Howard Murphy, Area Variance — 1 IncCatl,er Drive , Dryden kyszard Wawak , Use Varialve — 1721 Dryden Road , Frccville Howard Murphy, Area Variance = 1 Catherine Drive Chair KeJeman read the public notice into the re-ad the public notice and opened the public hearing at 7 = 30 pm . Howard Murphy described the proiect brie Ely . Cary McMiIIan of 11 Catherine Drive cxpresscd sane concern with the land next to the creek , The area lie ' s building on , the previous ow ner told their that the land was fiIIed (filled in) because of the runoff ri ght there - Concern is that d lie extends his garage out there, the runoff could Nvt! a ncgatly� - impact on the structural integrity of the garage . Discussion of 15 ' setback rule - BA asked ; Howe close is neighbor' s nearest structure to property ling:? M c M Ilan stated that their house is about 200 ' from the property line , Pierce BraInham does not have concerns regarding the placement oi' ll, e garage . H Murphy — le Ingoing to use my existing garage door and just add Araight back through ; put an archway in . if 1 had to go around - . - this will eliminate having to put a driveway around there and everything else to try and get down in to the back vard - Derr Kelcmen — Closed the public heanng at 7 ;45 prn , There Were 110 written commerits , Area Variance - A , Tom Quinn made a motion to approve the following facts for item A of the Area �+ariance : 1 , The Board finds there arc no objections from the neighbors . 2 . The reyue �ted variance only affects a small portion of the property - The motion w+a�; seconded by Pahl f, u6wak . All members voted in favor . The motion passed, ZBA 05-01 -2007 Page 2 of 4 B . Tom Quinn made a motion to approve the following facts for item B of the Area Variance : 1 . Ocher than re- locating the entire garage and driveway, the project cannot reasonably be located elsewhere . Motion was seconded by John Goodrow. All members voted in favor. Motion passed . C . Tom Quinn made a motion to approve the following facts for item C of the Area Variance : 1 . In view of the fact that only one corner of the garage would be non-compliant, the requested variance is not substantial . Motion was seconded by John Goodrow. All members voted in favor. Motion passed . D . Tom Quinn made a motion to approve the following facts for item D of the Area Variance : 1 . While there has been concern raised about potential environmental impact based on a nearby drainage ditch , the board cannot conclude by granting this variance there would be a negative impact on the environment. Motion was seconded by Paul Lutwak . All members voted in favor. Motion passed . C . Paul L, utwak made a motion to approve the following facts for item E. of the Area Variance : 1 . Yes , the difficulty was self-created . Motion was seconded by Tom Quinn . All members voted in favor. Motion passed . This variance is an Exempt action under SFQR section 617 . 5 (c), . 12 & . 13 & 239 L &M . ® r � Richard 1� awak , lJs< Variance 1721 Dryden Road Chair Keleman read the public notice into the read the public notice and opened the public hearing at 8 : 05 pm . Attorney Marcus asked whether the owner, Tracy White, had given permission . Code Officer Slater replied in the affinnative . There was discussion regarding the definition of variances and that by their nature , they attach to a piece of property , not to a person . That means this variance is not being transferred from person to person, it exists with the property to be used by whoever owns the property . Unless the activity being proposed tits the current variance in place, either a new variance would need to be issued or the existing variance expanded . Variances are not removed or rescinded in regards to whether or not they are used . Also , Use Variances are very different from Area Variances . The basic threshold of a Use Variance is that the Board concludes that the property can ' t be used in an economical viable way under its existing zoning . The existing zoning is Residential . f n the last variance request, you (the Board) concluded that the property couldn ' t be sold for residential purposes, which is its allowed purpose . Once you deternine that, you have to determine if the property could be used for the requested purpose . Regardless of the prior variance , this variance request still needs to have those questions answered . Discussion of how this ro osal differs from a home- based business that is already allowed P P } in the zoning code . It appears that the only issue is the number of employees allowed , As CFO Slater ZBA 05-01m2007 Page 3of4 pointed out, this business is not on the list of allowed home -based businesses , nor is set up as an in-home business . The proposal includes an out building where the assembly of the products will occur and is set up like the commercial business that it is . Mr. Wawak was asked about traffic flow with his proposal . That was a major concern with the prior variance . He stated that 1 customer a day, maybe even every other day , would be the average . The employees ' five (5 ) cars would arrive in the morning and leave in the afternoon . That would be the extent of it. As far as truck traffic, a cube van would deliver the furnace part(s) to be assembled . There are no freight trucks or tractor-trailers . The systems assembled by Mr. Wawak ' s company are mostly for residential homes . The systems would typically be installed over a period of two weeks in the basement of the home they are to be installed in . N11r. Wawak ' s company provides a service that assembles these before hand . They assemble 20 or 30 at a time and can do l per day . This allows the one trip to the residents ' home . How will packing material be disposed of? What are received are boxes with items . They will be stored in a corner of the building ( indoors) and recycled once a month directly at the Tompkins County Rccyclino Center. Discussion of conditions listed on prior variance and whether that level of review is needed . Does variance apply to the area being sold, can that area be enlarged before the sale date and still be covered? The best record to be found says that the variance applies to the area that Yeman proposed to purchase . That is what that variance applies to — the area Yeman was to purchase . A letter from TG Miller, the Town Engineer, was distributed as it was just received this afternoon . The traffic cut will not be off Route 13 , which was a major concern with the Yeman project . Closed the public hearing at 8 : 45 pm . Use Variance A . Oers Keleman made a motion to adopt evidence previously presented and findings as listed in the 5 /2/06 Notice of Decision regarding the variance previously granted for this property as Follows : The potential of this property as residential is limited and attempts to market it have failed . The proposed variance will allow some return to the applicant. This property fronts on a high traffic highway . Seconded by Tom Quinn . 0 Keleman , J Goodrow, T Quinn, D Sprout voted in favor. P Lutwak voted against. The motion passed . B . Paul Lutwak made a motion to approve the previous findings as listed in the 5/'2/06 Notice of Decision regarding the variance previously granted for this property as follows : Yes , all the properties on the Route 13 corridor zoned R.B 1 are subject to similar hardship as realties to the majority of other properties in that zone . LBA 05=01 -2007 Pagc 4 of 4 Seconded by John Goodrow. All members voted in favor. The motion passed . C . Tom Quinn made a motion to approve the following facts for item C of the Use Variance : Yes , there are several businesses in the area, including All -Mode across Mineah Road , Multi - family housing nearby, billboards, a church on Route 13 , and a shop nearby . The current proposal will include a residence, eliminate curb cuts on Route 13 , and may reduce the traffic flow in the neighborhood as compared to the previous proposal . Seconded by Paul Lutwak . All members voted in favor. The motion passed . D . John Goodrow made a motion to approve the following facts for item D of the Use Variance : Yes , the development of commercial enterprises in the area have had a negative impact on this property for its zoned use . The location of a high volume state highway has further contributed to this situation . Seconded by Paul Lutwak . All members voted in favor . The motion passed . This variance is a Non -Exempt action under SE.QR . Paul Lutwak made a motion to accept the SEAR findings from the 5/2J06 NOD and determine a negative declaration . Paul Lutwak made a motion to adopt the findings of the 239 L &M review listed in the 5 /2/06 NOD . David Sprout seconded the motion . All members voted in favor . The motion passed . Tom Quinn made a motion to grant the variance requested without conditions , John Goodrow seconded the motion . All members voted in favor. The motion passed . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 05 pm . Respectfully submitted , Patty Millard Recording Secretary I