Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-08 TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals January 8th9 2008 Members Present: tiers Kelemen, Chair, John Goodrow, "l'liomas Quinn , Paul Lutwak Absent: Excused : Others Present : Randy Marcus , Town ZBA Attorney ; Henry Slater, Director of Zoning & Code Enforcement ; Recording Secretary , Joy Foster, Joe Solomon Town Board Representative . ` Applicants : James Hobart (Finger Lakes Stone) & Karel Westerling 0 Town Residents : Patricia Allen, John Dedrick, Kathy & John 1..udders, Donald Hartman , Zorika O'Q Henderson, .lames McKenna, GcoMey & Susanne Sharp, Mr. & Mrs. Purdy . Meeting called to order at 7 : 35PM. Agenda : Karel Westerling Area Variance 144 N . Street 7 : 30 Finger Lakes Stone, Use Variance 33 Quarry Road , 7 : 45 Karel Westerling Area Variance : Chair Kelemen : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Karel Westerling 144 North Street, Dryden NY who is requesting authority to create an improved parcel at 144 N . Street which provides 15 ,897 square feet of area where a minimum of 30 , 000 is required , providing a rear and side , lot boundary of less than the required 25 feet and 15 feet for an existing storage shed and off street parking less than 15 ' from proposed lot line and is appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Section 803 . 1 and 804 . 2 & . 3 to do so . SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday January 81h , 2008 , at 7 : 30 PM prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall , 93 East Main St. Dryden NY , at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard . Persons may appear in person or by agent. Kelemen to Mr. Westerling is there anything else you would like to add? Westerling : The only thing I would like to add is that the lot lines in question are internal lot lines between myself, in other words I ' m trying to divide off a piece so if I were to sell one of the pieces whoever was looking at buying would know what those lines were and i17they didn ' t like the location, or decide not to buy or request a lower price or something like that so I think that the lines are in effect exist where they are now, everything that is there is there, Fin not trying to Ochange that I just want to be able to sell part of it . ZBA: asks at this time you have no plans far this yuu.just want to make it able to sell when needed? Westerling: Has a possible buyer now in the works ? ZBA 1 -8-2008 Page 2 of 11 henry ; .The Wester•ling Appeal being loewed od acent to a Arew Fork State highway was subject to 2.39 L &MReview & recommendalion. (Coualy Plaanning), You have a copy of a December 4"' 007 239 1, & U report and recom m endalion- You Ill observe, the C'ovnty presents 2 .specific recorr mendarions each relatirag to AForrh Street, (Route 13).. access, The County is opposed to any additional access io North Slreel so mach so that they .siafe nol following the recommendation will require an extra ordinary vote, tna -ority plus } to provide approval without incorporating their` recommendations. The lrrcrvisirrn,s cif General jVunicipal Law ,Section 239 Alf subseclion 4 (a) 5, permit the referring body, ( BA), to approval a prr)jeel or• ap}reed, rrhout inCojporflling recommendation, Mot l�fictraiony or contrary to the 239 L Mreport by a majorityplus one vole- Please remember, a majority plus one for` the RA is 4, frs fhe rec} rrr`reme �t applies to the entire Board not,jarsi the Board memberspre.serd for the vote. Plefr,se also consider, then are only 4 ZBA members active al this tirme, To not incorporate the County recommencicrfuon will require all (4) to vote in ferivor of fhe granting fhe appeal. Incorporating the recr)mrrrendfrfr`Ons will require 3 supporting voles. Diveu.ssion : # certainly understand the concern for limiting road cuts ulrrng this .sect ion ofNorth Stree t- If certainly would be ideal to restrict North Street access from .Little Creek 1qobile Hume Par} the Cabo use Complex and the proposed future development identified as Lol B to Qvonisf Drive one of two Little Creek ingress egresses- Ce-iriainl these ideals are well worth discussion wiih Mi9, Westerling. Ynv also will find the 239 L Afreport & exhibit. BA : Looks over the mapv �rnd exhibits and they discuss with each other- and with Randy Marc-us, details and r ofrd & curb earls- They spend 1;rme making ,core each are clear with what they are looking fit, Wes lerling: I 'm nol a,ykingfor anymore r•ofrdcuts don 'rMink # need any; every parcel has a road cul. # bought in 1988 and I understand that the road ails have been there for a couple o decades- dxcepi or the Caboose road cut, that one Iput in in 1989 with a DOTper-mif- ZBA: asks that the Planning board is recorr mending that you access this property ihr() ugh (i iwanis Dr.) thfa is one ofrhe. curb cuts and you have onepasr chat where the Christmas tree Iot is and the .Planning hoard has addressed that curb cut, what do you feel you want to continue to use that one ? Westering : Yes, in r)fher orris e very parccl will have its own existing curb cart- Henry suggests Thal your consider this the wiry it is? ZBA 1 -8-2008 Page 3 of l 1 Randy : Wants ZBA to understand want Henry has said The only variance that is being requested is for the parcel that is the first parcel that you come along to that has the Caboose on it. The other 2 parcels that remain after culling out of the package are perfectly OK where they sit. They are large enough and have adequate road f•onlage. It 's just the first of the 3 that are undersized. Oers : asks Westerling if the shed is of value to worry about. Westerling: Shed has a bathroom in it. Plumbing so cant be moved easy. Henry : to ZBA keep in mind that this• property for about 20 years has fiinctioned the way he is asking to do it just hasn 't had the lines there. Westcrling : The 2 Mobil homes behind there 1 put in, in 1990 they each have 5, 000 sq. ft. of yard area and ifI go beyond that then I no longer meet code requirements. Oers ask if there are any comments ./rotn anyone ? From ZBA ? "There are no more comments and Henry has received no written comments or concerns. Ocrs : then we will close the public hearing. 8: 05PM 8e07 start the Finger Likes Stone hearing. Oers : reacts PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the 'Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will continue a Public Hearing to consider the application of The ringer Lakes Stone, for a Use Variance to construct a building for a 2...i stone cutting operation at 33 Quarry Road , and are appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Section 1701 . 1 to do so. SAID HEARiNG will be held on 'ruesday January 81.h , 2008 at 7 : 45 PM prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall , 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard . Persons may appear in person or by agent . Ocrs : 70 Mr . Hobart, do you have anything fiu•ther to add? CVO Oers : states that we have just been handed a letter for exhibit so we will take a few minutes to review it. The letter in question is from the Quarry ' s neighborhood . The letter reads as follows . . . To: Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals From: Neighbors of Finger Lakes Stolle Cotnpanv, Inc. Re: Application for use variance to construct a building to house a new saw at Finger Lakes Stone Company ® Date: October 30, 2007 Finger Lakes Stone Company (located at 33 Quarry Rd , Ithaca, NY 14850) has applied for a use variance from the ZBA. The initial hearing was held b y the ZBA on Sept. e, 2007. The purpose of the variance request is to construct a building is which to house a new stone cutting saw. Neighbors are concerned that the new saw and building could lead to ewpansion of the quarry operation, with a resulting increase in noise and truck traffic and deterioration in the quality of life 4foreover, neighbors are ZBA 1 -8-2008 Page 4 of 11 is /it late .Seplember, neighbors met with James Hobart, lite quarry owner, to discuss these issues. Mr. Hobarl said that his intent for the new saw was to replace an obsolete one. He said there would be no increase in truck traffic and that Ilse only increase in production would be a boost in efficiency owing to less rejected stone. The old saw would be kept only as a backup in the event that the new saw broke down, he said. He also said that he is willing to grade lite rough areas along Quarry Rd. and plant trees as a visual screen. Mr. Hobart has made a number of improvements to Ilse quarry since purchasing it in 2000, including insulating the mill building to reduce noise from tine saws; replacing a bulldozer with a quieter one; and grading portions of the quarry site, which improved the lands appearance and also reduced noise by allowing quieter operation of equipment on smoother terrain. The neighbors acknowledge and appreciated these improvenents. The neighbors and quarry owner realize that there is a mutual need to coexist within this cohabited business/neighborhood community. Therefore, the parties state their mutual support of the use-variance approval with the following stipulations: 1. After a suitable period of tine for installation and testing of the new saw (9- 12 months), the current business owner or ary future owner agrees to discontinue the general use of the current 10 foot-tall saw, using the saw for emergency purposes only or for limited block preparation. The old saw will not be run at night 2. When the old saw is retired, no saws will be added where the old saw is now housed. Current machinery may be relocated there. 3. The current or any future owner of the business will commit to continue the upgrading of the physical appearance and operations of the quarry property, to include, but not be limiter! to, landscaping (e.g., platting evergreen trees in front of the southern end of the quarry within the new two years) ; building repair and maintenance, including maintenance of the quarry entrance; painting the existing mill building to match the color of the new building; and quarry-related road maintenance. 4. The current or any future owner will use best faith efforts to limit all truck traffic into the area to normal daytime hours of operations. S. Quarry employees, vendors, contractors, and customers will use best faith efforts not to operate heavy equipment (e.g. , forklifts), drive large trucks, or otherwise make noise before 7: 00AM The quarry will only operate for extended hours to maintain contract obligations as an emergency measure only. 6. The Torvn of Dryden and the neighbors have the right to inspect the facility to be assured that these coalitions are being met It is understood that anyone who visits the quarry for inspection will first stop at lite offrce and do so only during regular business hours. Having agreed to the above stipulations, the parties agree to support the use-variance application with anv other Zoning Board ofAppeals requirements. it is further requested that this agreentent as written be added to the variance approval documentation and noted in the meeting minutes as conditions relating to this approval for a building. Sincerely, Letter is signed by neighborhood. David Astrof and Victoria Flock of 66 Quarry Rd Zorika Henderson & Charles of 7 Su►nry Knoll Donald Hartman of 134 Quarry Rd Ethel & Norman Vrana of 1296 Ellis Hollow Rd. Rhian Ellis & J. R. Lennon of 1309 Ellis 11ollow Rut Tsai AM OuLee & `flat Setter of 13 Quarry Rd. Rory Todhunter of 100 Quarry Rd. Joanne Barel, of 10 Quarry Rd. Resident of 490 Snyder Hill Rd. Christine & Brian Wilbur of 1335 Ellis Hollow Rd. Barbara Mitchell of 134 Quarry Rd. Resident of 147 Quarry Rd. Kathleen & John Ludders of 1297 Ellis Hollow Rd. .tab " Unhart proc;domt no' Flnaor t nIr4vv S nno rn. tope. ZBA 14=2008 Page 5 of 11 0 Oers: asks Mr. Hobart if he has anything f,rther to add. Mr. Hobart no ! Oers : asks ZBA if they have any f irther questions ? Randy explains to ZBA how conditions work and how to be clear on something and how to enforce a condition. Some of the examples in the letter are clear and would be acceptable as a condition. ZBA and Randy talk about conditions, trying to keep them simple and not too technical (legal). And ZBA talks about having the letter included in the records its the neighbors and FLS have come to .come kind of understanding and this should be respected. Randy has suggested to the ZBA that they need to add conditions. Z8A take some time to discuss with each other. A few neighbors in the audience speak about why they want the conditions added and Mr. I3obart speaks that he agrees to the conditions as well. Oers : closes the public meeting at 8:50PtW Oers : Back to the Westerling decision ® 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 : It appears no detriment will occur: the configuration of the lot has existed for nearly 20 years. The proposed variance demarks the current and post configuration. Motion made by : Oers Kclemen Second : Tom Quinn 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: No, the current layout of the property and its relationship to surrounding properties cannot be changed more effetely. Uostly line expansion would encroach on the road. Removal of the existing shed is the only solution to the side and back requirements. This solution is prohibit expressed onerous. And does not address the size requirements . Motion made by : Paul Lutwak Second : John Goodrow A is • e ZDA 1 -8-2008 Page 6 of 11 Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is. The side setback is three feet where 15 ' is required 7'he rear is 1 h ' 1aJhere 25 ' is required and the total square footage ojthe lot 15, 89 ►where 30., 000 ' is required Motion made by : Tom Quinn Second : John Goodrow All in favor 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: 1Vo, the neighborhood will remain essentially unchanged. Motion made by : Tom Quinn Second : Paul Lutwak All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes! Motion made by : Tom Quinn Second : Paul l,.uhvak All in favor Short Environmental Assessment Form Page (2 ) PART If - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.47 If yes , coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. Yes No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes No ® C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels , existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : no C2 . Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : no ZBA I4-2008 Page 7 of I I C3. Vegetation or fauna , fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: no C4 . A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : n0 C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: no C6 . Long term , short term, cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: no C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: n0 D , WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? Yes NO If Yes, explain briefly: E. IS THERE , OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? Yes NO If Yes, explain briefly: PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a ) setting (i. e. urban or rural ) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain ® sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA, Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide , on attachments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Name of Lead Agency Dryden Town Zoning Board Of Appeals Date January 8 , 2008 Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Oers Kelemen Title of Responsible Officer Chair Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer ( If different from responsible officer) 239 I.,& M ZBA 1 propose that ive make a condition for granting the variance that requires a submittal of ® the site map confirming the dimensions referenced in part C (which is the area variance substantial) John Goodrow : makes a »notion Tom Quinn : second All in favor. ZBA 1 -8-2008 Page 8 of 11 ® Paul Lutwak : maker a motion that we grant the variance with the condition stipulated Oers Kelemen : second All in favor . 9:20 hack to tit Finger lakes Stone decision. Use Vartanee A. THE APPLICANT CANNOT REALIZE A REASONABLE RETURN PROVIDED THAT LACK OF RETURN IS SUBSTANTIAL AS DEMONSTRATED BY COMPETENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE: Testimony of Sept . 41h , 2007 and supporting exhibits submitted by the applicant demonstrate the need to modernize to remain competitive . Motion: Tom Quinn Second : Paul Lutwak All in favor. B . THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS UNIQUE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD. The property in question is the only Quarry operation in this neighborhood . Motion: Tom Quinn Second : Oers Kelemen All in favor. C . THE REQUESTED USE VARIANCE IF GRANTED WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD : The property is an operating quarry the installation of a new saw in itself does not require a variance however a new shed to house the saw will require a variance the addition of another building will not alter the neighborhood . Motion: Tom Quinn Second : Oers Kelemen All in favor. D. THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN SELF-CREATED: No. The need to stay financially competitive has occasioned the need for new equipment. The new equipment needs to be properly housed to protect it. (See exhibit 1 page 2 paragraph 2). Motion: Tom Quinn Second : John Goodrow All in favor . ZBA 148 2008 Page 9 of 11 Conditions to be attached to this : 1 . Afier a suitable period of lime fins installation and testing of the new sate (942 months), the current business owner or any future owner agrees to discontinue the general use of the current 10-foot-tall saw, using the ,saw for emergency purposes only or for limited block preparation. The old saw will not be run after S: 00 PM or before 7: 00 AM. 2 . When the old saw is retired it will not be replaced 1+pith an additional saw. 3 . The property owner will make reasonable effort to upgrade physical features of the property by landscaping and building maintenance. 4. Good faith efforts will be made to refrain from operative of heavy equipment before TOO AM or after 5: 00 PM including truck traffic to and fiorn the site. 5 . A copy of a letter of good faith agreement between the owner and neighbors .shall be part of the record of this hearing. Motion: Torn Quinn Second : John GoodrOLV In favor: Oers Keiemen Ney : Paul Lutwak PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) A_ DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use ® the FULL EAF. Yes NO B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes No C , COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: no C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : no C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: no C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in usa or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : no C5. Growth, subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: no C6 . Long term , short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: n0 C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: n0 D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? Yes NO If Yes, explain briefly: E . IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE , CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? Yes NO If Yes , explain brief GBA 1 -8-2008 Page 10 of 11 PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting ( i .e. urban or rural); ( b ) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . If question D of Part It was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box If you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF andfor prepare a positive declaration, X Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide , on attachments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Name of Lead Agency Dryden Town Zoning Board Of Appeals Date January 8 , 2008 Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Oers Kelemen Title of Responsible Officer Chair Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Final decision Motion to grant the variance subject to the conditions as proposed in the findings. Motion Tone Quinn Second : John Goodrow All in favor Meeting adjourned at 10 * 08 PM Meeting re- opened by Henry to discuss the recommendation of Mark Maybury, Henry- The town board wanted the ZBA to look tit his appointment. David Sprout was a person who had planning and construction background . Mark Maybury has construction background) of 20 some years and has technical Education that you saw from his resume. In keeping with our practice of trying to Provide a balanced variety of people who serve on a board , education, background , business, community guy. It' s difficult to get that construction background and it ' s also very important in the Area Variances especially that you review because you rely on someone with a construction background to say " Yeah this guy is telling the truth or no this guy is full of garbage". So to keep that balance I tried to find somebody with a construction background , and i got lucky and found Mark who is willing to serve. That' s why I m recommending Mark Maybury to an appointment to the ZBA as requested by the Town Board . Mark is a field supervisor for Bailey Homes who do modular housing and has been with them for at least 12 years and does 3-4 project s in the Town of Dryden per year, 1 know him and have respect for him . mate: A11 in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10 : 20 PM Respectfully submitted, .loy Foster Rpenrrtino Cperptory FILE Y TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN , -- W YO : 93 EAS"I" MAIN S'IXELT, DRNI)E\i, NEW YdRK 13033 607-844-8888 optiost 2 In the Hearl of the Falrger Laket Re ion Zoning & Building Code Enforcement January 16, 2008 Karel Westerling 144 N. Street Dryden, NY 13053 Re : Notice of Decision, Dryden Town Area Variance Request, 169=2007 Z 144 N . Street, Dryden Dear Mr. Westerling: 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 pernut, neither is it an authorization to fail to conform to the requirements of any other appropriate agency having jurisdiction over your project or use . The attached notice of decision is, Dryden Toym "Zoning authority to proceed with your proposal only . If the Zoning Board of Appeals attached any 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 607444- 8888 ext. 216 from 8 : 00am till 4 : 00pm Monday — Friday . Very truly yours, 4 M. henry M . Slater, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden cc : ZBA-018 -07 Planning Board TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN , NEW YORK 93 EAST NfAI Nt STREET, DRYDEN. NEW YORK 13053 607-844-8888 option 2 fn the Heart of IIJe FIiInger f akeS RZ .g on Zoning & Building Code Enforcement CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE This is to certify that Karel Westerling applied for a Dryden Town Zoning Permit for a proposed construction project described on the application for Zoning Permit No . ( 169 -2007 Z) At 144 North Street , Dryden , NY (within the Town of Dryden ) . Tax Parcel # 37 . - 1 -2 . 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 authority to create an improved parcel at 144 North St. Dryden which provides 15, 897 square feet of area where a minimum of 30, 000 is required, providing a rear and side, lot boundary of less than the required 25 feet and 15 feet for an existing storage shed and off street parking less than 15 ' from proposed Iot line. On January 8th, 2008 the Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals, (ZBA) met in session and granted this appeal. Enclosed is the Notice of Decision with condition for granting the variance that requires a submittal of the site map confirming the dimensions referenced in part C (which is the area variance substantial) 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 BY : Henry . Slat r, Zoning Officer STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE Karel Westerling The property located at 144 North Street, Dryden (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 37 . . 1 . 2 . 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 , NeNv York 2008 Oers Kelemen ONOTICE OF DECISION ® AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT: Karel Westerling , Westerling Properties L.L . C. January 8111 , 2008 A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Karel Westerling , 144 North Street , Dryden , who was asking for relief from Section 703 . 2 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance . Applicant requested authority to create a lot with non - conforming lot area & non -conforming side & rear boundary changes to his existing 144 North Street property. Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday January $L'' , 2008 with members present : Chairperson Oers Kelemen , Thomas Quinn, 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 : It appears no detriment will ocean•; the configuration of the lot has existed for near l v 20 years. The Proposed variance demarks the current and post configuration. Motion made by: Oers Kelemen Second : Tom Quinn 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 : .Vo, the current layout of the property and its relationship to surrounding properties cannot be changed more effetely. ,Mostly line expansion would encroach on the road Removal of the existing shed is the only solution to the side and back requirements. This solution is prohibit expressed onerous. And does not address the size requirements . Motion made by: Paul Lutwak Second : -John Goodrow All in favor A Notice Of Decision Jan. 8, 2008 Karel Westerling- 144 North Street Page 2 of 5 ® Co IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is. The side setback is three feet where 15 ' is required. The rear is 1 b ' where 25 ' is required and the total square footage of the lot 15, 897 where 30, 000 ' is required Motion made by : Tom Quinn Second : John Coodrow All in favor 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, the neighborhood will remain essentially unchanged Motion made by: Tom Quinn Second : Paul Luhvalc All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes! Motion made by : Tom Quinn Second : Paul Luhvak All in favor Notice Of Decision Jan. 8, 2008 Karel Westerling- 144 North Street Page 3 of 5 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ART I - PROJECT INFORMATION o be completed 4y A xplicant or Pro'ect Sponsor) 1 , APPLICANTISPONSOR 2, PROJECTNAME 3. PROJECT LOCATION: r Municipality l "A,.� V1 pp - eV County a , PRECISE LOCATION (Sheet address and read intersections, prominent Iandmarlm, eta, or provide map) 1 f q Nt_i trc4 11 S t v ` ko l <Fs w a b �te � `�-e �4asrk �t Rya tlo ;JEG s� r� � r 'a � �s ecSSr��vts 5. k4posw ACTION IS: New U Expansion C] Moilftmtion/altarafion S. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: �� i 'c 'i J �� C:Ur-► fvt � Y oGc f � ra � � � d-y i 'n � o '� l' 4 -5 a, c) e .J t �� fr � re. r�u�4rL. s Utnr� e�e � l QeLr �t� tio� ' � ` taraJicic � � bs wdu, � to a bu .� c ka 1od�h 1d ar t � o� 7, AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:. Initially l ,w& ( 3 "*/— • acres Ultimately , 3 . 1 c"�¢/ acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING XONfNG OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Yes No If No, doscribi brietty (Z) Ppy4 0]Jes Ls " L sk /a il- k e v e a O n . o dr 034),a4 i S vagc�l� ..E cw n Gil i irl ' 43 LAle j p rCIo0e,4 Q1r,6At b 4r � t w roo - ei c�S . a crUJs c su6s rr/ 9. WHAT Is PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT7 ® Residential Industrial ® Ce sU'O mmerdal Agriculture PadrlForepen Space Other Omer w 74a apes. i 8 o. rr; o V1z44,E 1 C, amma1, a1'q( veaj / dOiw 4:: 100G. t-ic�' C'cJc �cc. 6i'rnAe. f tiler 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEOERAt, STATE OR LOCAL)? Yes No If Yea, fat agenaf(s) name and pem Jbppr wutsL 04to-*14 /elI p accebf apt'cj /dC.'Y ajfj1 .c, /vevti')orofa 11 , ODES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PEWrr OR APPROVAL? Yes No IfYea, 4st aliewi(s) name and permiltapprovaW �' � �i0c�1 Q Cr/La-•j° � °'1C 1445 b'/yu� � f' Coe1-&D'jwee-�.q fivnj. 76 "JY7 , C' Co- b06je J' ✓ho6de- { Ica /� rip {wuc nci�86 � eaorjJQw•o .SQrL/i1�z 12; AS A RESULT OF PROPOSES] ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? . Yes Lti!] 0 I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATIOA•f PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE NEST OF MY IWOVW.EDGI_ Applicant{sponsar name: w IDate: Signature: ® If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment Oven 1 Short Environmental Assessment Form Page (2 ) PART 11 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. Yes No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes No C, COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING : (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern , solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : no C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: no C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: no C4. A oommunity's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briofly : no C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : no C6 . Long term , short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: no C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: no D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? Yes No If Yes , explain briefly: E. IS THERE , OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? Yes No If Yes, explain briefly PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its ( a) setting ( i.e. urban or rural ) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration ; (d ) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed , If question D of Part II was checked yes , the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the ® environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . Notice Of Decision ..fan. 8, 2008 Karel Westerling- 144 North Street Page 4 of 5 X Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide , on attachments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Name of Lead Agency Dryden Town Zoning Board Of Appeals Date January 8` , 2008 Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Oers Kelemen Title of Responsible Officer Chair Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer) (239 L&M) subject: See attached 12 -4-2007 Tompkins County Planning (Regional Reviewer) , report. Report specifically recommends limited North Street access and required super majority vote to do different. Board voted super majority as the lot of action did not involve the lot the 239 L&M was critical of. ZBA I propose that we make a condition for granting the variance that requires a submittal of the site map confirming the dimensions referenced in part C (which is the area variance substantial) John Guodrow : makes a motion Tom Quinn : second All in favor. Paul Luhvak: makes a motion that we grant the variance with the condition stimulated Oers K.elemen : second All in favor. DECISION : VARIANCE GRANTED , with condition for granting the variance that requires a submittal of the site map coqrtrming the dimensions referenced in part C (which is the area variance substantial) Notice Of Decision Jan. 8, 2008 Karel Westerling- 144 North Street Page 5 of 5 Tompkins,;County DEP-ART-l%I-EP1TTy=Dx'�- PL°ANNING 6 .; 1 .�J .21 East: Court Street; Edward C. Marx , AICl' Ithaca,�hlew:Yor14 148 ' Commissioner of Planning Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Public Works Fax (607) 274-SS78 December 4 , 2007 Henry M . Slater Director of Building, Zoning, and Planning Town of Dryden 65 E. Main Street Dryden , NY 13053 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area Variance — Westeriing-subdivision at 144 North Rd into three parcels Dear Mr. Slater: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have negative inter-community or county-wide impacts. The Department offers the following recommendation regarding the proposed project: Recommended Modification • As these parcels are subdivided, access to each of the new parcels needs to be considered , especially as the access and interior roads to the larger parcel (37 .- 1 -2 . 2) are all private . We oppose any new access points along this stretch of NYS Rte 13 , Therefore, an access easement to proposed Parcels 3 and B and a cross easement from proposed Parcel 3 to proposed Parcel B should be created before subdivision in order to guarantee future access to both parcels via Quonist Road . • In the alternative, we recommend that proposed Parcels B and 3 remain a single parcel and that the restilting Parcel 3 be granted the access easement to Quonist Road . If the Board does not incorporate these recommendations into its approval , such approval will require a vote of a supennajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision -making body. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C . Marx, A1CP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Allen T. Fulkerson, L . S. David A , Herrick , P. E . Lee Dresser, L . S , - -- LER P. C . Frank L . Santelli , P. E . Andrew J . Sciarabba , PE. Engineers and Surveyors DarrinA, Brock, L. S . November 27 , 2007 Mr . Oers I{elemen , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Dryden 93 East Main Street Dryden , New York 13053 Re : ZBA Agenda for December 4, 2007 Reed, Westerling and ringer Lakes Stone Applications Dear Mr . Kelemen : At the request of Mr . Henry Slater we have reviewed the agenda items for the December 4th , 2007 meeting. None of the applications require further engineering review or comment, as they do not include the extension of any Town services. Please call nee or David Putnam at our office if you have any questions or require additional information . Sincerely , Andrew J . Sciarabba , P . E . Town Engineer cc : .S . Trumbull , Supervisor M . Perkins, Town Attomey H Sa`attr>;t3f: ran a Dl*yden00" 203 North Aurora Street ■ Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 272-6477 ■ Fax (607) 273-6322 • www.tgmillerpc . com E7 FILE COPY TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN , NEW YORK ® 93 r AS'r MAIN STREET, DR1'IaEN , NEW YO]tK 13033 Ile 607-844-8888 option 2 In the Heard of the Finger Laker Rekion Zoning & Building Code Enromement January 16, 2008 James Holbart (finger Fakes Stone Quarry) PO Box 433 Conklin, NY 13748 Re : Notice of Decision, Dryden *town Use Variance Request, 103 -2007 Z, 33 Quarry Rd . Ithaca, NY Dear Mr. Holbart : 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. The attached notice of decision is, Dryden 'Town Zoning authority to proceed with your proposal only. If the Zoning Board of Appeals attached any conditions to this approval , such conditions are part of the Zolung 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- 844.8888 ext. 216 from 8 : 00am till 4 : 00pm Monday — Friday . Very truly yours, ut Henry I . . later, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden cc : ZBA-014 -07 Planning Board TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN , NEW YORK ® 93 LAST i+,L-\1N STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORI< 13053 607-84 -8888 option 2 In the .Heart of tl)e t`irl�erl.aker Rqion Zoning & Building Code Enforcement CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE This is to certify that Finger Lakes Stone Quarry applied for a Dryden Town Zoning Permit for a proposed construction project described on the application for Zoning Permit No . ( 103-2007 Z� At 33 Quarry Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 (within the Town of Dryden), Tax Parcel # 67 . - 1 - 67. 2 as proposed has been reviewed and the same complies with all the applicable sections of the Torn 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 construction of a 40 ' X 40 ' building and to install a second stone saw, at 33 Quarry Rd. Ithaca, NY, A building permit is required. On January 8th, 2008 the Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals, (ZBA) met in session and granted this appeal with these conditions. Enclosed is the Notice of Decision . 1 . After a suitable period of time for installation and testing of the new saw (942 months), the current business owner or any future owner agrees to discontinue the general use of the current 10-foot- tall saw, using the saw for emergency purposes only or for limited block preparation. The old saw will not be run after 5:00 PM or before 7:00 AM, 2 . When the old saw is retired it will not be replaced with an additional saw. 3. The property owner will make reasonable effort to upgrade physical features of the property by landscaping and building maintenance. 4. Good faith efforts will be made to refrain from operative of heavy equipment before 7:00 AM or after 5:00 PM including truck traffic to and from the site. 5 . A copy of a letter of good faith agreement between the owner and neighbors shall be part of the record of this hearing. 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 Co �� J BY : STATE OF NEW YORK% COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF DRYDEN In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE Finger Lakes Stone Quarry The property located at 33 Quarry Road, Ithaca (Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No . 67 . - 1 -67 . 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 : Dry en New York /1 i , 2008 Oers Kelemen NOTICE OF DECISION USE VARIANCE APPLICANT: Finger Lakes Stone Quarry January 81h, 2008 A public hearing was held to continue and consider the application of The ringer Lakes Stone, for a Use Variance to construct a building for a 2nd stone cutting operation at 33 Quarry road. Submitted by James Holbart of PO Box 433 , Conklin , NY 13748 who was appealing Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Section 1701 . 1 to do so. Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday January 81h, 2008 with members present: Chairperson Oers Kelemen, Thomas Quinn , John Goodrow, and Paul Lutwak. Use Variance A. THE APPLICANT CANNOT REALIZE A REASONABLE RETURN PROVIDED THAT LACK OF RETURN IS SUBSTANTIAL AS DEMONSTRATED BY ® COMPETENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE: Testimony of Sept. 4th , 2007 and supporting exhibits submitted by the applicant demonstrate the need to modernize to remain competitive . Motion: Tom Quinn Second : Paul Lutwak All in favor. Be THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS UNIQUE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD. The property in question is the only Quarry operation in this neighborhood . Motion: Tom Quinn Second: Oers Kelemen All in favor. C. THE REQUESTED USE VARIANCE IF GRANTED WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD , The property is an operating quarry the installation of a new saw in itself does not require a variance however a new shed to house the saw will require a variance the addition of another building will not alter the neighborhood. Motion: Tom Quinn Second : Oers Kelemen All in favor. Notice Of Decision January 8`h, 2008 Finger Lakes Stone Quarry - 33 Quarry Rd Page 2 of 5 D . THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN SELF- CREATED: No . The need to stay financially competitive has occasioned the need for new equipment . The new equipment needs to be properly housed to protect it . (See exhibit 1 page 2 paragraph 2) . Motion: Tom Quinn Second : John Goodrow All in favor. Motion to approve use variance as conditioned below: Motion: Tom Quinn Second: John Goodrow All in favor. Conditions to be attached to this : 1 . After a suitable period of time for installation and testing of the neiv saw (9- 12 months), the current business owner or arty f tture owner agrees to discontinue the general use of the current 10 foowall saw, using the saga for emergency purposes only or for limited block preparation. The old sing 1'vill not be run after S : 00 PM or before 7: 00 AM. 2 . When the old saw is retired it will not be replaced with an additional saw. 3 . The property owner will make reasonable effort to upgrade physical features of the property by landscaping and building maintenance. ® 4 . Good faith efforts will be made to refrainf•om operative of heavy equipment before 7. 00 A or after 5: 00 PM including truck tragic to and f•ona the site. 5 . A copy of a letter of good faith agreement between the owner and neighbors shall be part of the record of this hearing. Motion: Torn Quinn Second : John Goodrow In favor, Oers Kelernen, Tom. Quinn, John Goodrow Nay: Paul Lutivak PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency ) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. Yes No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another Involved agency. Yes N o C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) ® C1 , Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or Flooding problems? Explain briefly: no Notice Of Decision January 81°, 2008 Finger Lakes Stone Quarry — 33 Quarry Rd Page 3 of 5 Motion to grant the variance subject to the conditions as proposed in the findings. Motion Tom Quinn Second : John Goodrow All in favor Conditions to be attached to this : 1 . After a suitable period of time for installation and testing of the new saw (9- 12 months), the current business owner or any future owner agrees to discontinue the general use of the current 10-foot-tall suw, using the sale for emergency purposes only or for limited block preparation. The old saw will not be run after 5: 00 PM or before 7: 00 AM. 2 . When the old saw is retired it will not be replaced with an additional saw. 3 . The property owner will make reasonable effort to -upgrade physical features of the property by landscaping and building maintenance. 4. Good failh efforts will be made to refrain f om operative of heavy equipment before 7: 00 AM or after 5: 00 PM including truck tra f c to and f om the site. 5 . A copy of a letter of good faith agreement between the owner and neighbors shall be part of the record of this hearing. Motion : Tom Quinn Second : John Goodrow In favor, Oers Kelemen, Tom Quinn., John Goodrow Nay : Paul Lutwak Notice Of Decision January 81°1 2008 Finger Lakes Stone Quarry — 33 Quarry Rd Page 5 of 5 617,20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I - PROJECT INFORMAYION To be com leted A ficant of P ect Sponsor� 1 , APPLICANTiSPONSOR 2. PROJECTNAME STjN /Y G S�J W ��✓ C �- O S Lt Cr 3, PROJECT LOCATION: Munlclpauty O County o .� P ,vim a. PR1;CISE LOCATION (Scree! . ddress and road inm sedans, Promtnant Iandma*1%, etc., or ptovktr) map) 3.� Q Lot /-i- � R A D 1 'T ili /9 + �✓ 4 5'a 56 PROPOSFD ACTION IS: New Exxanafen ModlRcatlnnlaltQntion ®. nFCraiac caniECT BRIEFLY: � aA I � O r �✓ 9 To ENC L -a $ E Ne uJ S� t cJ . SAc..y �� �' W p l i Q.,rt,� l� i�•�o�c�' t3ar C . !3t4 l 017 �i2Ee s n �q�, 13r �1� Sa� , •,i, L 7, AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: InItklily j% O :V- acme 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING 7OMNG OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Yea No If Na, de5crtbti bdefly B � 4'Y+ Jv ..�'�•", I nCa 1N1' C" � Y1 , �/ �tc� 4snS , Cc• ,SSSIF iS Cf a (jc; e'iur+ c'CV cjce a^ �, bJr•: �. � �•, �✓' 1cYr'� C� (71 91 WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF pROJECT? ®e, Redldantlal 9 tndunbiat Cemmessctat a9frnrlture ElPartciForsasifO,nen Span Otltar Oesalb � j i c� r� � ci ( � C I'1rQ�t� v'c� �C-' � `'' L^_ J/ i i•� ) !.�/ ! � . aZ na 7 C' cnid:rrrn-t r' O'kj P ye .e arf ',1 t!.' . , cr Lf StvS .n'7 1 /7 CScf�'Yw Gfc �cr � Q h _� �e C. 1 r c = itd r ��, �/ u 1 i/►-� ,j • %! P s v v h Le i n eSJ` 1D, DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING , NOW OR ULTIMATELY (PEOERAL� STATE OR LOCAL)? FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNta1ENTAL AGENCY 12 Yes No If Yes, Ilst agency(,) name and pomliNappravais: (> OZ V (26A) Clr]r j1 jar, Qct IdS 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF TH E ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY.VALI O PERMIT OR APFROVA4? LI Yeas LQ No It Yes, Ilst agenry(e) name and pormftpprmmhh 12, AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMMIAPPROVA.L REQUIRE 1,100IFICATION7 Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNO%i&rZQGE APPUCantlsponsor namo: A, C O //N D7t©: .__�� Slgrwtu ' =IfIlhoction Is in the Coastal Area , and you are a state agency, complete the astal Assessment Form before. proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 ® C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : no C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: no C4 . A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : no C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : no C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI -05? Explain briefty: no C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefty: no D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? Yes No If Yes , explain briefly: E. IS THERE , OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? Yes No If Yes, explain briefly: PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting ( Le, urban or rural ) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope ; and (0 magnitude, If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed_ If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA, Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed direcity to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . X Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide , on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination . Name of Lead Agency Dryden Town Zoning Board Of Appeals Date January 8r , 2008 Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Oers Kelemen Title of Responsible Officer Chair Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) OFinal decision Notice Of Decision .January 8", 2008 Finger Lakes Stone Quarry — 33 Quarry Rd Page 4 of5 J. Tompkips County DEPARTME . R - NTt' OF• PLANNING A 21 bast" Couxt:,StreetS i .Edward C. Marx, AICP r .. -Ithaca, Nev� ; York . 14850 Commissioner of Planning Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Public Works ' Fax (607) 274-5578 August 31 , 2007 Henry M. Slater Director of Building, Zoning, and Planning Town of Dryden 65 B. Main Street Dryden , NY 13053 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -I and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law . Action: Use Variance Appeal to construct a 40 ' X 50" building and install second stone saw Dear Mr. Slater: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -I and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter- community or county-wide impacts . The Department offers the following comments regarding the proposed project, which are not formal recommendations under General Municipal Law §239 -1 and —m : The property owner should submit a complete site plan , including existing structures and specific location and footprint of proposed structure prior to the Town voting on this variance. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Allen T. Fulkerson, L. S. David A. Herrick, P. E. ny 1 T Lee Dresser L. S. Frank L. Santelli , P. E. Andrew J. Sciarabba, P. E . Engineers and Surveyors Darrin A. Brock, L. S . August 29 , 2007 Mr. Ours Kelemen , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Dryden 65 East Main Street Dryden , New York 13053 Re : ZBA Agenda for September 4 , 2007 Parker, Cavney and Finger Lakes Stone Applications Dear Mr. Kelemen : At the request of Mr. Henry Slater we have reviewed the agenda items for the September 4th, 2007 meeting. None of the applications require further engineering review or comment, as they do not include the Pp q ) extension of any Town services . Please call me or David Putnam at Our office if you have any questions or require additional information . Sincerely, Andrew J . Sciara it, P. E. Town Engineer cc : S . Trumbull, Supervisor M . Perkins, Town Attorney H . Slater, Town of Dryden n 203 North Aurora Street ■ Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 272-6477 ■ Fax (607) 273-6322 ■ www.tgmillerpc.com