Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-06TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals April 6, 2021 via Zoom Minutes approved on 6-1-21. Members Present via Zoom: Janis Graham (Chair), Ben Curtis, Henry Slater, Karl Kolesnikoff Absent: Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning. Joy Foster Recording Secretary, Applicant Peter Wrege Residents: 0 Meeting called to order at 6:10 PM 452 Ringwood Rd., Area Variance Auolicant: Peter Wrege Chair Graham reads the public notice: NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Peter Wrege for a variance to allow construction of a greenhouse within 31 feet of the road, at 452 Ringwood Road, Tax Parcel ID 59.-1-37.1. Town Zoning Law prohibits structures within 50 feet of the road. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav April 6.2021 at 6:00 am at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. This meeting will be held electronically via webinar instead of a public meeting open for the public to attend in person. Members of the public may join the Board meeting by connecting via internet or phone. See details posted 4/5 to the Town website at: dryden.ny.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: planning@dryden.ny.us Individuals 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. Graham: reads into record the (1) email received from a resident about the variance. To whom it may concern, We won't be able to attend the zoom meeting with regards to Peter Wrege's application to construct a greenhouse but wanted to express that the only potential concern we have would be the possibility of glare or reflection. We would like to know if that is being considered by the builders. Thank you, Sarah Craft 957 Midline Rd. Graham: After receiving this email, I called the company doing your greenhouse, Growing Spaces and asked them about glare and reflection and was told there can be glare on a panel, as the sun shifts could be glare for 15 mins and then moves on to another panel. And if glare becomes a problem there is a painted coating that could be applied to the panel that could reduce the glare still allowing the solar to come through. So, if we approve this variance, we could make this a condition. Wrege: has no problem with the coating and if the neighbor has glare, he will do the coating. Does not want this project to annoy any neighbor. Graham: Ray we have the County letter are there any other responses? Burger: I had (1) call from Nancy Munkinbeck in favor of the project. Foster: I had (1) call from Carol Burnett she lives at 477 Ringwood Rd and owns a property at 467 Ringwood Rd. She has no concerns with the project, thinks it is a wonderful idea. Wrege: I would like to talk about the future possible breezeway before we close the meeting. Wrege: shows a model and talks about connecting the house to the dome with a 11 'x5' porch in a polycarbonate so not to make it a dark tunnel, the door into the house would be a normal lockable exit. Porch would be 8' in height. With a possible sliding door to walk into the yard. Curtis 6:30 pm motion to close the public part of the hearing and as a board will answer the 5 questions. Second: Kolesnikoff All in favor - yes 2 Graham: sense of the board? Curtis: looked at the property and project and it appears to be a well worked out project, applicant takes into account any environmental concerns. I would be in support and I also am glad to have talked about the future breezeway so would not have to re -visit with another variance. My only concern is that the variance will go with the property and another owner may interpret the approval for a breezeway and build a 4 -story structure, we need to say that the connections do not exceed the dimensions of the connecting buildings and is no closer to Ringwood Rd. then the variance would permit the greenhouse to be. And not to exceed the height of the dome or the doorway entry. Board will now answer the 5 questions. 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: Except for the potential detriment to produce glare (to be addressed in "conditions"), overall, the project would not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood, as partly evidenced by the fact that two neighbors came forward with letters of support and none came forward with opposition. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Graham- 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: Having looked at the map and the floodplain there are no other logical place for the project, and it meets the flooding and the environmental concerns being the best location. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor — Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The ZBA finds the requested area variance is substantial at 19 feet but its setback is no closer than portions of the house. Given location of the house and the narrowness of the property it seems to be appropriately located where applicant is suggesting. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: - Kolesnikoff - 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 ZBA finds that no it will have minimal adverse effect partly because applicant's construction technique minimizes any disturbance of the soil plus any potential construction runoff goes away from the stream. Motion made by: Graham - 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: The ZBA finds the alleged difficulty was self-created the applicant bought the property knowing the constraints of the narrowness and by placing project any closer to the stream would be problematic. The applicant has taken a very thoughtful account to minimize the effect on the environment. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEOR exempt tune II action Dart 617.5c- 16 Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes Grant variance Decision and Conditions: The ZBA grants this variance with 2 conditions: 1) If glare becomes a problem to the neighbor that the applicant agrees to apply the manufacturer's painted coating or approved equivalent (OAE) to reduce the glare. If a complaint comes to the Town about glare from the building the owner agrees to apply the painted coating or approved equivalent and to be done within 6 months. 2) If the applicant constructs a breezeway between his home and the dome it would not exceed the height of either structure and would be no closer to Ringwood Rd. Our intent is to allow this future breezeway under this variance so further variance is not required. Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance with 2 conditions Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor — Yes Add the Co 239 letter Board drafts the language that Ray will send to the county. No practical placement of the project, more importantly the runoff does not go near the stream and his construction technique minimizes the runoff and any runoff would run away from the stream. Motion to adjourn: Graham Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor — Yes Graham motions to adjourn, 7:10 PM Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Katherine Borgella, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability March 11, 2021 Shelley Knickerbocker, 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 accessory structure located at 452 Ringwood Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel #59.4-37.1, Peter Wrege, Owner/Appellant. Dear Ms. Knickerbocker: 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 as described below. We recommend modification of the proposal. If the Board does not incorporate the recommendations, such approval will require a vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision-making body. Recommended Modification • We recommend that the Town require the applicant to locate the proposed structure outside of the 100' buffer from the edge of the perennial stream. In order to help protect water quality and reduce stormwater runoff to the nearby perennial stream, it is important to reduce the amount of incremental development that occurs within the stream's buffer. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability cc: Michael Lane, Tompkins County Legislator, District 14 InAsion through Diversity Curtis moves to approve the minutes from April 6, 2021 Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes NOTICE OF DECISION AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT: Peter Wrege DATE: April 6, 2021 NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Peter Wrege for a variance to allow construction of a greenhouse within 31 feet of the road, at 452 Ringwood Road, Tax Parcel ID 59.-1-37.1. Town Zoning Law prohibits structures within 50 feet of the road. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav April 6, 2021 at 6:00 pm at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. This meeting will be held electronically via webinar instead of a public meeting open for the public to attend in person. Members of the public may join the Board meeting by connecting via internet or phone. See details posted 4/5 to the Town website at: dryden.ny.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: planning@dryden.ny.us Individuals 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. 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: Except for the potential detriment to produce glare (to be addressed in "conditions"), overall, the project would not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood, as partly evidenced by the fact that two neighbors came forward with letters of support and none came forward with opposition. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Graham- 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: Having looked at the map and the floodplain there are no other logical place for the project, and it meets the flooding and the environmental concerns being the best location. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor — Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The ZBA finds the requested area variance is substantial at 19 feet but its setback is no closer than portions of the house. Given location of the house and the narrowness of the property it seems to be appropriately located where applicant is suggesting. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: - Kolesnikoff - 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 ZBA finds that no it will have minimal adverse effect partly because applicant's construction technique minimizes any disturbance of the soil plus any potential construction runoff goes away from the stream. Motion made by: Graham - 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: The ZBA finds the alleged difficulty was self-created the applicant bought the property knowing the constraints of the narrowness and by placing project any closer to the stream would be problematic. The applicant has taken a very thoughtful account to minimize the effect on the environment. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEOR exempt type 1I action Dart 617.5c-16 Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes Grant variance Decision and Conditions: The ZBA grants this variance with 2 conditions: 1) If glare becomes a problem to the neighbor that the applicant agrees to apply the manufacturer's painted coating or approved equivalent (OAE) to reduce the glare. If a complaint comes to the Town about glare from the building the owner agrees to apply the painted coating or approved equivalent and to be done within 6 months. 2) If the applicant constructs a breezeway between his home and the dome it would not exceed the height of either structure and would be no closer to Ringwood Rd. Our intent is to allow this future breezeway under this variance so further variance is not required. Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance with 2 conditions Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor — Yes CERTI.F....L..CATION 1, Janis Graham, (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: Dryden, New York Dated: V