HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-05 TOWN OF DRYDEN
Zoning Board of Appeals
® June 5 , 2007
Members Present: Oers Kelemen , Chair; John Goodrow; Paul Lutwak ; David Sprout.
Excused : Thomas Quinn
Others Present : Randy Marcus , Town ZBA Attorney; Henry Slater, Director of Zoning & Code
Enforcement; Patty Millard, Recording Secretary, ,Toy Foster ZoLung Secretary ,
Applicants : Cayuga Radio Group , lryna Dolgikh, Patricia Lucente, Stephen Lucente
Town Residents : Kim Rothman , Larry Fabbront , Craig Christopher, Susan Johnston , 011ena
Gutor, Oleksandr Gutor.
Meeting called to order at 7 : 30 PM.
Agenda .
Patricia Lucente, 1 -3 Observatory Circle 959 Dryden Rd,
Patricia Lucente, 5 -7 Observatory Circle 959 Dryden Rd,
Cayuga Radio Group, Sign Variance 1751 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, NY
Iryna Dolgikh, Side yard set back Varianct:, 326 Snyder Hill Rd . Ithaca, NY
Patricia W. Lucente re-subdivision Observatory Circle 1 -3
Chair Keleman read the public notice into the read the public notice and opened the public
• hearing at 7 : 30 pm .
Kim Rothman in place of her dad David Tyler described the project briefly from documents that
were already sent in. For lots 1 &3
Lam, Fabbroni Project Engineer, spoke on the map and the flag wall and the driveways . They
were in years ago and past lots have been sold and now needs to do the same to these lots .
Kim spoke on market value .
ZB - asked about making curb cuts/changes
Randy Marcus — Yes, but what is being improved is connected to the curb cut, approval of the
flag lots will allow the 2 lots with 15 ft. of shared driveway .
ZB - in both cases will the curb cuts change
Larry — no just the one
r
ZB= will there be 2 curb cuts of 15 feet or one with 30 feet
Larry- 2 of 15 feet shared driveway .
Discussion with the applicants and attorney and ZB about driveway . . .
Oers - any other
e questions
TBA Ofi USmI007
Page 2 of 8
Hcnry � no problems with this request .
hers to applicant do you have anything to add for 5 &7
Kim everything I said about 1 &3 goes 1"or 5 &7 as we11 .
Oers- 7 A5 will close for public discussions and come up with our finding*
Open 7 A 5 hearing is open for 5 &7
Closed 7 : 50 ZB discussion ou cooperating finding from tonight to past
Area Variance :
A . Oer5 made a inotion to approve the Cc lowing facts foe item A ofth3 , Area Variance :
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 .
The duplex building already exists having been erected as permitted under- the prawmi
zoning ordinance the change from rental snits to owner occupied single family homes
will bring desirable changes to the character of the neighbor hood and will bene fit near
by }properties also the communily will be enhanced a owner occupledhorme,s are typically
Mier maintained then rental urriis- The requested variance on] y affects a small portion of
the property, Tn considering the 3 variances being requested see 13 - 15 Observatory
I er
Motion made —l . Sprout
Seconded by J . Goodrow All embers voted i m n favor. The motion passed ,
13 , Ommade a motion to approve the follow] ag ror item '&
In Cansidering whether the beneras sought by the applicant can be achieved by
some other method , feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance,
the zoning board of appeals finds as the following+
The applicant 's previOusp€'esentation (considering the 3 variances) 10 this board
demonstrates that olhf?r approaches are non econom ically feasible or legally feasible .
Motion made A . oodTo
Seconded by D , Sprout All members voted in favor
C . Oers made a motion to approve the following facts for item C of the Arca Variance :
In considering whether the requested area variance is substantial. The zoning board
of appeals finds as follows :
In considering the 3 variances, yes ir '.s substantial.
ZBA 06-45-2047
Page 3 of S
Motion made, F , Lutak
Seconded by 17 . Sprout All members in favor
D . 0ers made a motion to approve the following fa-M; for item D of the area Variance :
In considering whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The
Zoning Board of Appeals finds as fotlowss:
LxIs ingstruc:turas will remain as built with the exception of some additional drive wiry
areas to be constructed as required in the conditons. In considering the .3 variances the
existing structures will remain as built with ghe exception of widening rye driveway area.
Which will have inini al impact on the physical or errvirfrnmenlal conditions in the
neighborhood.
Motion made- P .Lutwak
Seconded -D . Sprout. All members in favor .
E . 0ers made a motion to approv+ & the following facts for item E of the Area Variance :
In considering whether the alleged difficulty was self created . The ZonRug Board of
Appeals finds as follow % :
Yes , gunge of usage is se?f=creafod however given the benefil which accrues to the
owner and town and that tyre environmental impact, f f any, h; negligible, we feel the
benefits .for oulweigh any potential impael. In considering the 3 variances, yes, change of
usage .
Motion grade by I'_ Lulwak
Seconded 1 Sproul All members infavor_
This appeal is an Exempt action under EQR see 6JWCR-R Part 617 Section 617 _ -c- . 1 + , 13
Tl,iis appeal is 239 L&M exempt see NYS Gencral 1VlunIjpal Law 39M-3-b ( 1 -6)
Final Motion *
Variance Granted with conditions -
1 . Decd previously approved covenants by Hoard Attorney Marcus providing for mutual easements to protect
and grC5crve. the COMMOri walls between the units ("party wall"), to rnaiutain and repair exterior walls
immediately adjacent to the common boundary line, as well as the public utility lines For the respective
units . And to include joit) t driveway covenants as approved by Attorney Marcus_
2 . Restrictive covenant prohibiting the future addidnn of an acccsst,ry apartment to the newly divided duplex
units.
3 . Construct ; or establish there exists the building code requited fire rating for the common wall between the
divided units .
4 . Mufion to adopt and renumber crinditions from previous variance ,
ZRA 06-05-2007
'age 4 of 8
otion P - Lutwak
Seconded-D . Sprout All members in favor,
Patricia W. Lucente Observatory Circle lot 5& 7
1 . See minutes use same findings .
Motion made- P Lu[wak
Sccundcd- I .Goodrow ► ll members in �4%ror,
'This Variance is Exempt
Dina] approval enotion by P. Lutak
S =ondcd ^ D - Sprout All members in favor.
Cayuga Radio Group 3ra Variance.
Oers opened discussion to publie at 8 : 2.3 read request.
Craig Christopher- brought sample of letter for the sign Thal they wamt o put up . Says sign will
enhance the look of the bAding, They w] II keep sign withw] n the 80 feet, WilI not effect the
en%Viranment. Need drivers to be able to see sign.
Bmlocks at drawing of where sign well go ,
" Bmasks if any complaints
Henry Slatter�NO complaints , speaks about offices with 1 vs2 signs .
Randy Marcus —speaks of Radio station being in the office oate gory , other than an office they
would be allowed more then one sign .
Oers will leave open instead of closing the hearing -
General findings from the Board, all are in agrcement for the sign see no reason not to let them
pot up a second sign -
Oers goes to next case and tells the Cayuba Radio Group that they can go and that they are in
favor of the sign .
Iryna Dolaikh, 326 Snyder Hill Rd, Side Yard .Set Back Variance:
Oers reads request for Variance
Oers asks appti clan is if they have anything else to add to their caLw
ZBA 0645S 2007
Page 5 of R
with Ids , T]nlgikh; 01ena 6u#or shows the board pictures of lean-#o v� th no foundation just area for
garden tools .
Henry —tells ahoat a letter from a neighbor,
ZB -a bit of discussion of If the jean-too is built already.
ZB- to Henry did they have a permit to build the garage"
Henry- yes they have a permit to build the garage, the garage is built, Kevin put a stop work order
On project as they started to build the lean-to with no mention of Chat.
B to Attorney with reading this neighbor' s letter their request is to have trees planted . Is this
something we (:�m impose?
Attorney --you are certainly in your rights to request trees to be planted, the lean-to can also be
taken downif sa ordered.
Oers-reads letter from neighbor
ZB -a bit of discussion about if they had a permit for the garage and for the lean-to, applicants
don ' t understand. Henry goes to get original permits to check documents and dates,
Henry= shoes notice of violation from KevM -perrorming work lv�eithou# a permits and having
erected a carport within the setback or side yard with out having a variance , Dated April 23
3 -a discussion about if the lean-to way a part of the garage plans or a separate item ,
Henry-origizaa] permit to build a 0x2.4 8f-_ high. garage , 2 vAmldows, 1 entrance , I garage door to
be built on the footprint of the burned down garagpe . 412 3 stop work order was issued . Applicants
state the work was complete by 4/ 3 anyway.
Henry — in any event the owners amended the original plans to build the lean-to without our
permission .
Applicants agree this is how this happeaied ,
ZB - discuss the issue of planting trees _
Oers-tell applicants they may leave , 8 : 5 and they will receive a letter stating what they need to
da _
Discussions on
a LLBa radio Group
A. In considering whether an undesirabie change would be produced in the character of
the neighhorhood or detrirnenl to nearby properties will be created by granting of the area
Variance the Zoning Board of Appeals finds as follows :
ZBA 06-M2007
Page 6 of 8
No Me signage will enhance the appearann? of' the building. 1olal signage will remain under 80
feet.
Motion-Oers
Second-J . Goodrow All in favor
B. In considering w4ther the benefits Nought by the applicant can be achieved by
some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area
variance, the Zoning Baarii of Appeals finds pis follows :
o, zoning krwj doesn 't permit 2"1 sign_
Motion —D - Sprout
Second -J .Gocdrow All in favor
C. In considering whether the requested area variance is substantial . The zoning
board of appeals finds as follows :
Yes, but total sq. footage is lest then what is allowed.for a ,single .sign.
MotionyJ _ Goodrow
Second-D . Sprout All in favor
D. in considering whether the proposed variancc will have an adrrerge effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The
Toning Board of Appeals finds as follows :
No f The change is Just having the same s ignage as the business thai are in the area,
Motion-P . Lut ak
Second -11 Sprout All in favor
R . In considering whether the alleged difficulty wits sell -rercated . The Zoning Board of
Appeals finds as follows ;
Yes _
Motion -D . Sprout
SecondwP . Lutwak All in favor
This variance is an Exempt
Action under SEAR Section 617 . 5-c(7) add favorable 239 L M
Motion-Dr Sprout
Second-P . .Lutwak All in favor
ZBA 06-45--2007
Pane 7 of S
ti
1) ecisivn : Variance (. ranted , as requested
iryna Delgikh , 326 nvder Till 11d , Side Yard Set Back Variance :
Ar In considering whether an undesirable change would be produced in the cbaracter
of the neighborhuod ar detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting
of the area variance the Zoning Board of Appeals finds as follows :
The structure has already been built- The only affected neighbor has no objection as long as
some screens are provided aiong the for dine per condition,
!Motion-D . Sprout
Seennd -J - Goodrow All in favor
B . In considering whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
other method , feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, The
Zoning Board of Appeals finds as follows :
Shorf o tearing it down, no-
Motion-D . Sprout.
econd -P , Lutwak Al ul favor
C. In considering whether the requested area variance is substantial. The Zoning
Board of Appeals finds as follows :
Yes, It `s S ' info a 15 ' .sei back
Motion=J , Guodmw
Second -P . Lutwak All in favor
D. In considering whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the phyiic# L or Environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The
Zoning Beard of Appeals finds as follows :
No. It &u no nag- impact,
Motion -P . Lutwak
Second-.D , Sprout All in favor
E. In considering whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. The ironing board of
Appeals finds as follows :
Definitely-
TBA 0645-2007
Page S of 8
Motion-P . Lutalc
Second-J _ Goodrow All iu favor
This Variance is Exempt
Action under S U R Section 617-5R - 12
Motion-D _ Sprout
Second-J. Goodrow Al in favor
Decision : Variance Granted , as requested
Conditions :
1 . Directly from letter types of trees , maintenance and replEaccmcnt. Subject to Zoning
Officer ver*tfyigg sight line is Mocked .
9: 2
Closed flub hearing ut1] aliorr to move �at Llvak, seconded-John Goodrow
Moll Io adjourn Paul Lutwa , seconded�lohn Groodrow
The ?heeling was adjourned at 9 : 30
Joy Fosler•
Zoning Secroary
I
STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TOWN OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
Iryna Dolgikh ,
The property located at 326 Snyder Hill Rd,
{Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 69 . - 1 - 1 . 13
I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the
Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of
® fact and decision approved by such Board on :
Dated : Dryde , New York
2007
Oers Kelemen
NOTICE OF DECISION
AREA VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Iryna Dolgiikh
June 6 , 2007
A public hearing was held to consider a revision to an original application submitted
by Iryna Dolgilch , 326 Snyder Hill Rd , who is requesting permission to construct and
otherwise conforming detached private garage which includes a lean to portion which
extends 8 feet into the required 15 foot side yard and is requesting a variance to
Section 703 . 2 (side and rear yards) of the Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance to do so.
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on
Tuesday June 6, 2007 with members present: Chairperson Oers Kelemen , David
Sprout, John Goodrow , and Paul Lutwak .
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 :
The Structure has already been built . The only affected neighbor has no objection as
long as some screens are provided along the lot line per condition .
Motion: David Sprout Second : John Goodrow
In Favor : 4
Opposed : 0
B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE
APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Short of tearing it down, no .
Motion : David Sprout Second : Paul Lutwak
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Yes . It ' s 8 ' into a 15 ' set back
• Motion : John Goodrow Second: Paul Lutwak
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Iryna Dolgikh , 326 Snyder Hill Rd Page 2 of 3
D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN
ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
No. It has no neg. impact .
Motion: Paul Lutwak Second : David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Definitely
Motion : Paul Lutwak Second : John Goodrow
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT/ NON -IsXEUPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION
617-5-C- 12 and also exempt from 235 L&M Review
• Motion: David Sprout Second: John Goodrow
VOTE: YES: 4
NO : 0
ABSTAINED: 0
DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions :
CONDITIONS .
Directly from letter submitted by Karin Ash and William Huling types of trees,
maintenance and replacement. Subject to Zoning Officer verifying sight line is
blocked .
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Iryna Dolgikh , 326 Snyder Hill Rd Page 3 of 3
STATE OF NEW PORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TOWN OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
Cayuga Radio Group
The property located at proposed 1751 Hanshaw Rd . Ithaca , NY
(Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 43 . - 2 -3 . 2
I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the
Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of
fact and decision approved by such Board on :
Dated : Dryd n , New York
C" , 2007
Oers Kelemen
NOTICE OF DECISION
AREA VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Cayuga Radio Group
June 5 , 2007
A public hearing was held to consider a revision to an original application submitted
by Cayuga Radio Group 1751 Hanshaw Rd . Ithaca, NY, who is requesting permission
to erect a second facility sigh where the Dryden Town Sign Ordinance only permits
one and is requesting a variance to Section 1502 . 6 table Le of the Dryden Town
Zoning Ordinance to do so.
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on
Tuesday June 5, 2007 with members present: Chairperson Oers Kelemen , David
Sprout, , John Goodrow , and Paul Lutwak.
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 :
No the sig age will enhance the appearance of the building. Total signage will
® remain under $ 0 feet .
Motion: Oers Second : John Goodrow
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE
APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
No , zoning law doesn 't permit 2nd sign .
Motion : D . Sprout Second: J . Goodrow
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Yes , but total sq . footage is less then what is allowed for a single sign .
Motion : John Goodrow Second: David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN
ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL
Notice Of Decision June 59 2007
Cayuga Radio Group Page 2 of 3
CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DI TMCT. THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS*
No! The change is just having, the same signage as the business that are in the
area"
Motion ; Paul Lutwak Second: ID . Sprout
In Favor; 4
Opposed: O
E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFI IULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
yes ,
M tiont D . Sprout Second: Paul Lutwak
In Favour: 4
Opposed* 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / ACTION UNDER SEAR SECTION
617. 5 -ei71 add favorable 239 L
The project is subject to 235 L&M review and a favorable recommendatiou was
provided and is attached.
Motion : David Sprout Second : Paul Lutwak
VOTE: YES: 4
NO : 0
ABSTAINED ; 0
DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED, as requested
Notice Of DecisioIL June 5, 2007
Cayuga Radio Group Page 3 of 3
STATE OF NEW YOR & COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TON OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
Patricia Lucente
'ne property located at 1 " 3 Observatory Circle
(Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 56 - 4- 7 , 1
I , Oers Relemen, Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the
Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of
Fact and decision approved by such Board qn .
Dated : Dryd , New York
M 007 YLn7=��
Oers Kelemen
® NOTICE OF DECISION
AREA VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Patricia W. Lueente
June 5 , 2007
A public hearing was held to consider a revision to an original application submitted
by Patricia W . Lucente , 959 Dryden Rd . Ithaca, NY 14850 who is requesting
permission to further divide a developed property at 1 -3 Observatory Circle resulting
in two (2) nonconforming developed lots with one dwelling each and is requesting a
variance to Sections 702 . 3 (frontage and lot area) & 703 . 2 ( side and rear yards) of the
Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance to do so .
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on
Tuesday June 5 , 2007 with members present: Chairperson Oers Kelemen, David
Sprout , John Goodrow , and Paul Lutwak.
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 :
The duplex building already exists having been erected as permitted under the
• present zoning ordinance the change from rental units to owner occupied single
family homes will bring desirable changes to the character of the neighborhood
and will benefit near by properties also the community will be enhanced . An
owner occupied horse are typically better maintained then rental units . The
requested variance only affects a small potion of the property . In considering the 3
variances being requested see 13- 15 Observatory Circle .
Motion: David Sprout Second: John Goodrow
In Favor: 4
Opposed : 0
B . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE
APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
The applicant's previous presentation (considering the 3 variances) to this board
demonstrates that other approaches are not economically feasible or legally feasible .
Motion : John Goodrow Second : David Sprout
In Favor: 4
® Opposed : O
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Patricia W. Lucentel -3 Observatory Circle Page 2 of 4
C . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
In considering the 3 variances, yes it 's substantial
Motion: Paul Lutwak Second : David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed: O
D . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN
ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Existing structures will remain as built with the exception of some additional drive
way areas to be constructed as required in the conditions . In considering the 3
variances the existing structures will remain as built with the exception of
widening the driveway area . Which will have minimal impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood .
Motion : Paul Lutwak Second: David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed: O
E . IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
® Yes, change of usage is self-created however given the benefit which accrues to the
owner and town and that the environmental impact, if any , is negligible , we feel he
benefits far outweigh any potential impact. In considering the 3 variances, yes,
change of usage .
Motion: Paul l,utwak Second: David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed : 0
THIS VARIANCE IS AN EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION
see 6NYCRR Part 617 Section 617 . 5-c- . 12 + . 13
This appeal is 239 L&M exempt see NYS General Municipal Law 239M -3-b ( 1 -61
Motion : Paul Lutwak Second David Sprout
" VOTE: YES: 4
NO : 0
ABSTAINED: 0
DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED , with conditions:
CONDITIONS :
1 . Deed previously approved covenants by Board attorney Marcus providing for
mutual easements to protect and preserve the common Walls between the units
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Patricia W. Lucentel -3 Observatory Circle Page 3 of 4
• ( "party wall") to maintain and repair exterior walls immediately adjacent to the
common boundary line , as well as the public utility lines for the respective
units . And to include joint driveways covenants as approved by Attorney
Marcus .
2 . Restrictive covenant prohibiting the future addition of an accessory
apartment to the newly divided duplex units.
3 . Construct , or establish there exists the building code required fire rating for
the common wall between the divided units .
4. Motion to adopt and renumber conditions from previous variances .
Motion: Paul Lutwak Second : David Sprout
Vote : Yes : 4
Ifo : 0
Abstained : 0
Notice Of Decision June 51 2007
Patricia W. Lucentel -3 Observatory Circle Page 4 of
STATE OF NEW YORK@ COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TOWN OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the - appeal of CERTIFICATE
Patricia Lucente
The property located at 5 = 7 Observatory Circle
(Town of Dryden Tux tiap Parcel No . 56 -4 - 7 . 2
I , Oers Kelemen , Chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS , do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the
Rules of Procedure of such Board , that the foregoing are the findings of
® fact and decision approved by such Board on :
Dated : Dryden , New York
92007
Oers Kelemen
® NOTICE OF DECISION
AREA VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Patricia W. Lucente
June S , 2007
A public hearing was held to consider a revision to an original application submitted
by Patricia W . Lucente , 959 Dryden Rd . Ithaca, NY 14850 who is requesting
permission to further divide a developed property at 5-7 Observatory Circle resulting
in two (2 ) nonconforming developed lots with one dwelling each and is requesting a
variance to Sections 702 . 3 (frontage and lot area) & 703 . 2 ( side and rear yards) of the
Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance to do so .
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on
Tuesday June 5 , 2007 with members present : Chairperson Oers Kelemen , David
Sprout, John Goodrow, and Paul Lutwak .
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:
The duplex building already exists having been erected as permitted under the
- present zoning ordinance the change from rental units to owner occupied single
-family homes will bring desirable changes- to the chatacter of the neighborhood
and will benefit near by properties also the community will be enhanced . An
owner occupied home are typically better maintained then rental units . The
requested variance only affects a small potion of the property. In considering the 3
variances being requested see 13- 15 Observatory Circle .
Motion : David Sprout: Second : John Goodrow
In Favor: 4
Opposed: O
B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE
APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS *
The applicant's previous presentation (considering the 3 variances) to this board
demonstrates that other approaches are not economically feasible or legally feasible .
Motion: John Goodrow Second : David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Patricia W. Lucente 54 Observatory Circle Page 2 of 4
Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS
SUBSTANTIAL , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
In considering the 3 variances, yes it's substantial
Motion: Paul Lutwak Second : David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed : 0
D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN
ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
Existing structures will remain as built with the exception of some additionai drive
way areas to be constructed as required in the conditions. In considering the 3
variances the existing structures will remain as built with the exception of
widening the driveway area . Which will have minimal impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood .
Motion : Paul Lutwak Second: David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed: 0
ME IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-
CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS :
• • Yes, change of usage- is self-created however given the - benefit which accrues to the
owner and town and that the environmental impact, if any, is negligible , we feel he
benefits far outweigh any potential impact. In considering the 3 variances, yes,
change of usage .
Motion: Paul Lutwak Second: David Sprout
In Favor: 4
Opposed : 0
THIS VARIANCE iS AN EXEMPT/ ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION
see 6NYCRR Part 617 Section 617 .5-c-. 12+. 13
This appeal is 239 L&M exempt see NYS General Municipal Law 239M -3 -b( 1 -61
Motion: Paul Lutwak Second David Sprout
k•VOTE: YES : 4
NO: 0
ABSTAINED: 0
DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED, with conditions:
CONDITIONS : '
1 . Deed previously approved covenants by Board attorney Marcus providing for
mutual easements to protect and preserve the common walls between the units
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Patricia W. Lucente 5-7 Observatory Circle Page 3 of 4
( "party wall' ) to maintain and repair exterior walls immediately adjacent to the
common boundary line , as well as the public utility lines for the respective
units . And to include joint driveways covenants as approved by Attorney
Marcus.
2 . Restrictive covenant prohibiting the future addition of an accessory
apartment to the newly divided duplex units .
3 . Construct, or establish there exists the building code required fire rating for
the common wall between the divided units.
4. Motion to adopt and renumber conditions from previous variances .
Motion: Paul Lurwak Second : David Sprout
Vote : Yes: 4
No: 0
Abstained : 0
Notice Of Decision June 5, 2007
Patricia W. Lueente 5-7 Observatory Circle Page 4 of 4
TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK
65 &r ST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053
607-8"-9120 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region
ZONING S BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT
June 8 , 2007
Patricia Lucentc
959 Dryden Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re : Notice of Decision , Dryden Town Area Variance Requests ,
062-2007Z 5-7 Observatory Circle
Dear Ms. Lucente ,
Please find enclosed the Notice of Decision, resulting from the variance hearings conducted by the
Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals.
Please note , this is not a building permit, neither is it an authorization to fail to conform to the
requirements of any other appropriate agency having jurisdiction over your project or use .
�he attached notices of decision are , Dryden Town Zoning authority to proceed with your proposal
ly . If the Zoning Board of Appeals attached an n , y conditions to this approval , such conditions are
part of the Zoning Variance and shall be conformed with . Failure to conform to any condition may
cause the variance to be null and void .
If you should have any questions or desire further detail , please feel free to call our office as necessary
at 607-844-9120 from 8 : 00am till 4 : 00pm Monday - Friday.
Very truly yours,
• 5
i4ryslater , Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Dryden
cc : ZBA-C l- 07
Planning Board
TOWN OF DRYDEN DRYDEN, NEW YORK
65 FAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053
607-844-9120 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region
ZONING & BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT
CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE
This is to certify Patricia W. Lucente applied for a Dryden Town Zoning Permit
for a proposed construction project described on the application for Zoning
Permit No . M62 - 2007 - Z)
At Observatory Circle # 5- 7 , Tax Parcel # 56=4-7. 2 as proposed has been
reviewed and the same complies with all the applicable sections of the Town of
Dryden Zoning Ordinance as they were in effect on the date of issue . It is issued
to and on behalf of the owner of record as listed above and does not contain or
imply any warranty to any third party . Furthermore , it is based on the
application , which was reviewed for purpose of Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance
Compliance only,
The holder of this certificate is hereby advised , this certificate is not a permit for
construction or for occupancy . This Certificate shall remain valid for a period of
one year only expiring one year after the date of issue .
This Certificate is issued for the permission to further divide a developed
property at 5- 7 Observatory circle resulting in two (2) nonconforming
developed lots with one dwelling each and is requesting a variance to
Sections 702 . 3 ( frontage and lot area) & 703 . 2 (side and rear yards) of the
Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance to do so .
This is not an OCCUPANCY PERMIT. Occupancy is obtained by meeting or
exceeding the requirements of the appropriate attached INSPECTION
SCHEDULE . This is an approval of submitted plans , and authorization to proceed
with the construction phase of the project .
DATE of ISSUE�F BY :
Zoning Officer