The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-05-01 TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals May 1 , 2012 Members Present: Chair Thomas Quinn, Deborah Sltigley, Mark Maybury, flint Brann, Nelson Hogg Abwn • 0 Others Present: Dave Sprout - Zoning & Code Enforcement, Recording Secretary - Joy Poster Aunllcants: Debra Thompson, Lee Alexander, Gary Mullen Town Residents: gone Meetine called to order at 7:30PM. en a : 3 - Area variance requests Quinn : Reads the 1" PtrblkNotice far !)ebra Thosrpso�t ' PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Hoard of Appeals for the Town of Dryden will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Debra Thompson who is reauesting an Area Variance for relief of Dryden Zoning Ordinance section 903 is to place a double wide manufactured home on her lot utilizing a shared driveway at 392 Caswell Road , SAID HEARING will be held on Tue. May 1 , 2012 at 7 :30PM 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. . Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Quinn: to applicant do you have anything further to add jr f Applicant Thompson: Nothing to add S A � Quinn: to Dave Sprout, have we heard from any neighbors? 1 Sprout : No • Quinn: reads Into record the County Department of Planning letter: LBA- Minutes 5- I - 12 Thompson, Alexander & Mullen 1 I Toinpkiris_.County DEPARTMENT -OF PLANNING Ea is 121 st, Court;Street , p ', • . • rr r� •_ . d ; Ithaca,"NIewYork , 14850 Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning Telephone (607) 274-SS60 and Community Sustainability Fax (607) 274-S578 May 1 , 2012 David Sprout, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 93 East. Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to 239 4 -m and -n of the New York State General al Law Municipal p Action : Area Variance for manufactured home at 392 Caswell Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel No. 29:01-21 .22, S. Debra Thompson, Owner/Appellant. * Dear Mr. Sprout: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 —1 , -m and —n 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. We note that a future subdivision of this parcel could not meet current town frontage requirements. 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 Community Sustainability Inclusion tfrougfi Diversity � Quinn: asks the board if they have any questions? Shigley: questions the driveway and buildings on the lot and if it is a shared driveway? ® Applicant Thompson: shows the board what and where everything is on the map Quinn: If the board has no more questions I will close the public part of this hearing and we will discuss and answer the 5 questions A -E. 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 detriment would be made to the character of the neighborhood by the granting of the variance and no negative notice was received by the neighbors. Motion made by: Shigley Second: Quinn All in favor Be 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, road frontage is already the minimum for the lot so there is no way to subdivide. . Motion made by: Maybury Second: Shigley All In favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: ® Yes it is extremely substantial. Motion made by: Quinn Second: Maybury 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 adverse impact using same driveway single-family home is compatible with the neighborhood the home is of the same kind that already exists. Motion made by: Hogg Second: Shigley All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes if isl • Motion made by: Maybury Second: Quinn All in favor 3 i THiS VARIANCE IS A SEOR exenngt Type [, Upell. Unlisted ® ACTION UNDER 617 NYCRR section 61 ZSc This appeal is subject to 239 L& M General Municipal Review. Shigley motions that the variance be granted. Second: Hogg All in favor Variance Granted, congratulations Quinn : moving on to new request. Quinn : reads legal at 7:45 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Dryden will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Lee Alexander who is requesting an Area Variance at 68 Southworth Road, to construct a 1016"X20' lean-to on existing garage Appealing Section 703.2 of Dryden Zoning Ordinance • SAID HEARING will be held on Tue . May 1 , 2012 at 7: 45PM 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. individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should • contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing Quinn to applicant: anything else you would like to add? Applicant: Alexander —No Sprout: No connments fi•otn the neighbors. You are looking at a lot line variance, at the time I didn 't realize it is within 3feet of the lot line Board looks at map where the lots are and the size and that Mr. Alexander owns both lots and there are houses on them. Quinn : if there are no snore questions l will close this part of the hearing to the public and we will answer questions A - 6. 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 there will not be an undesirable change it is only a issue of being too dose to the side 1o11ine and the a4 iacent property is owned by the applicant. Motion made by: Maybury • Second: Brann All in favor 4 • ® 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 : ® Yes, but the lean-to would need to be dismantled and rebuilt as a shed. Lot line adjustment is impractical and expensiue. Motion made by: Quinn Second: Shigley All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, 1he one corner is within 370 " which is 75% out ofcompliance. Motion made by: Quinn Second: Maybury 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 see 'A ', 4 post holes. • Motion made by: Quinn Second: Shigley All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No, was not self-created the original building permit was mistakenly issued by the Building Department. Motion made by: Quinn Second: Maybury All in favor THIS VARIANCE IS A SEUR etrenmt Type I, eLl Unlisted ACTION UNDER 6/ 7 NYCRR section 6/ 7 is/2 This appeal is subject to 239 I..& M General Municipal Review. Brann : motions that we grant the variance. Second: Maybury All in favor Quinn : congratulations variance granted ! Quinn : moving at to next request 5 ® PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the ZoningBoard of Appeals for the Town of Dryden will hold a PP rY Public Hearing to consider the application of Clary Mullen who is requesting an Area Variance for relief of Dryden Zoning Ordinance Sections 600. 1 and 906 . 1a In order to ® construct an addition to existing structure at 480 Livermore Road SAID HEARING will be held on Tue . May 1 , 2012 at 8:00PM 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 . Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Quinn to applicant: anything else you would like to add? Applicant: Gary Mullen, no Sprout: No continents fiorn the neighbors. Board looks at map where the center lot line is and it addition could be placed anywhere else, and they see cannot be anywhere else because of septic. Quinn : if there are no more questions 1 will close this part of the hearing to the public and we will answer questions A — E 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 there will be no undesirable change the addition is not any closer to the road than the exiting • house. Motion made by: Maybury Second: Brann 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 septic is in rear of house. Either site of house is out of compliance. Motion made by: Quinn Second: Maybury All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS : Yes, it is. Motion made by: Maybury Second: Broun All in favor 6 i I 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 there will be no aduerse effect on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood. Motion made by: Shiglcy Second: Quinn All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it isl Motion made by: Maybury Second: Hogg All In favor THIS VARIANCE IS A SEAR exenuil Type I, zkye 11 Unlisted ACTION UNDER 617 NYCRR seclion 617. $-02 • This appeal is subject to 239 L&M General Municipal Review. Shigley: motions that we grant the variance. • Second: Brann All in favor Quinn : congratulations variance grantedl Quinn: motions that this bearing is adjourned. • i