No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-07TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals Nov. 7, 2017 Members Present: Jeff Fearn (Chair), Ben Curtis, Gene German, Mike Ward, Henry Slater Absent: 0 Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning, Joy Foster, Recording Secretary, ZBA Residents: 0 Agenda: Area variance, Dutcher Roar, The Gowe's Meeting called to order and open at 7:03 PM Applicant: Timothy & Heather Gowe Chair Fearn reads the public notice: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Heather and Timothv Gowe for an area variance to build a aaraae in the front vard at 215 Dutcher Road. Town Zoninix Law prohibits placement of an accessory structure in the front yard. The requested relief is, to place the earaae in the front yard with a setback of 37.5' where 50' is normally required. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav Nov. 7. 2017 at 7 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. 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. Fearn to applicant: do you have anything further to add. Timothy Gowe: Only that the stakes were measured at 37.5' from Dutcher Rd. right-of-way, and the northwest corner at 39'. I would like it to be 39' from both stakes, with 11'setback relief on each. Board: suggests that you leave it at 37. S' from both with 12.5 setback relief. Applicant: and you understand why the building has to be forward is because of the leach field, needing 10'from the uphill side where the downhill side the saturation point, that's the minimum distant a building can be away. Also there is a buried utility pipe that runs off that backpoint the south west side. So we couldn't back the building up. Curtis: I have gone through the regulations, it makes no sense to me at all, there is nothing in the ordinance that deals with a corner lot like this one. If they are 50' from Dutcher Road and 50'from North Road, I'm not sure why this building is considered to be in a front yard. If it were 50' back it would not be in the front yard. Board and Ray Burger have a big discussion about this side yardfront yard/back yard, curb cut. Curtis finds nothing in the regulations that explains how we are suppose to analyze this? They talk about side yard, rear yard, lot depth. I think the applicant doesn't deserve to be burdened by the problem with the way the law is written. I'm requesting that the Planning Board re -visit this ordinance and make sense out of it. I looked at the lot and where they want to place the building and from the shape of the lot and where the house is placed it makes perfect sense to place where they are requesting, but then I looked at the law and the law made no sense to me at all. The board agrees with Curtis. Fearn : reads letter from neighbor in favor of project. Fearn: reads into the record the letter from Tompkins County Planning, where they have no issue. Fearn: since there are no more comments or concerns and no one in the audience, Curtis moves to close the public hearing at 7:23PM Motion made by: Curtis to close Second: Ward- Yes All in favor - Yes INSERT LETTERS NEXT ( Dave - Please relay this to the Zoning Board of Appeals - Thanks) Date: November 6, 2017 T0: Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Dryden RE: Heather and Timothy Gowe 215 Dutcher Road Please be advised that we have discussed their garage proposal with the applicant and have no objection to the project. We are their immediate neighbors and have the only parcel that shares a boundary line with them that does not include a public roadway. Thank you for your service to the Town of Dryden, Mark and Alice Goldfarb 173 Dutcher Road DEPARTMENT OF PiAN_NI O AND SUSTAINABILITY 121 l ast Cpitrt Stef Ithaca; New York:_ re. 14850 Katherine Borevella, AICP Telephone-(60 274-5960- Interim Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability October 19, 2017 David Sprout, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area Variance for Proposed Garage at 215 Dutcher Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel #26.-1-1.1, Heather Gowe, Owner/Appellant. Dear Mr. Sprout: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning & Sustainability 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. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Interim Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Inclusion through (Diversity 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 wouldn't be a undesirable or detriment to the neighborhood by placing accessory building closer to the road and what applicant is proposing is consistent with the area.. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: German- Yes All in favor - Yes 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 benefit of other choices would be a disproportional burden on the applicant with no benefit to the community. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Ward- Yes All in favor - Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes its substantial it's a 1/4 of the required setback.. However it in line with the other buildings on the property and in the general neighborhood. Motion made by: Fearn- Yes Second: German - Yes All in favor - Yes 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: The building would be closer to the road than allowed by the ordinance it has no impact on vehicular or pedestrian safe traffic along Dutcher or North Road. Therefore is doesn't seem to have a negative impact on environmental conditions or visual impact. Also more of a environmental impact if they were crossing the creek Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes /but this is a peculiar lot, a unique lot, the lots triangle shape which the applicant had no responsibility for, applicant is making the best of a bad situation. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis: this area variance is SEOR exempt type Il action part 617.5c-10 Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Grant variance Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance, my condition is not for the applicant but for the Planning Board to have the setback section be reviewed. That our board finds it very hard to understand or apply. Suggest that the Planning board review the previous or original ordinance Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes 7:33PM Motion to adjourn: German- Yes Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Congratulations you have your variance, happy building.