The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-06-01TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 via Zoom 1 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 Mr. & Mrs. McLean Residents: (2) neighbors Sonny Komanie and Andrew deLaubell Meeting called to order at 6:08 PM 285 Etna Rd., Area Variance Applicant: Daniel McLean 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 Daniel McLean for a variance to allow construction of a garage in the front yard, 100 feet from the road centerline at 285 Etna Road, Tax Parcel # 42.-1-46.12. Town Zoning Law prohibits placement of accessory structures in front yards. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 1, 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 May 28, to the Town website at: www.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. 2 Graham: asks applicant if they anything further to add about their variance? Applicant: is good with what they have submitted, they are just in need of more living space with the 2 growing children, their house has no basement or attic. This placement seems best because of the septic behind the home, out in front we have a drainage system because of the declining slope. There already is a gravel spot for the turnaround where we would like to add the detached garage and make into some living space. Graham: asks the Board if they have any questions? And currently there are no questions. Graham: asks the audience if any questions or concerns? Sonny Komanie is the neighbor to the West, and they are fine with the addition. Andrew DeLaubell is the neighbor to the South and is in support of the McLean’s building their garage. Kolesnikoff 6:13 pm motion to close the public part of the hearing and as a board will answer the 5 questions. Second: Slater All in favor - yes Graham: sense of the board? Curtis: feels they should grant the application, as the proposed building in not in the required front yard and is setback 75 feet. We have had numerous applications like this and we have approached the Planning Board, Town Board and Planning Department about this and its immaterial if the garage is an accessory to the house or the house an accessory to the garage, we have discussed this matter many times before and for that reason I would be in favor of granting this request. Slater: agrees with Curtis 100%. Kolesnikoff: I agree, and after being out to the property to see, I feel it would fit in nicely. Graham: I have no issues and made a site visit. Board will now answer the 5 questions. 3 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: Garages are typical in residential neighborhoods. This garage should make no noticeable change in the character of the surrounding community. It will not detract from nearby properties. In fact. two immediate neighbors took the time to attend the hearing to say they had no objections to the garage and approved of the project. Thus, the ZBA finds an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood would not be created by this project. 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: Given the downward slope of the area adjacent to and behind the house, any other location of the garage than that being requested would require large amounts of landfill at considerably greater expense. Yet the benefit of an alternative site would be negligible to nonexistent. Thus, the ZBA finds that it would not be feasible for the benefits to be achieved by another method. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The garage will not be placed in the required front yard and is a considerable distance from the ROW and adjacent neighbor’s homes. Thus, the ZBA does not find the variance requested to be substantial. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: - Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes 4 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 issue is only the position of the house in relation to the garage and as such it will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It should be noted that the front yard setback of proposed garage structure is far greater than the setback of many of the nearby homes. 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: Yes, it is self-created, but the limitations of the lot are obvious, with the areas along the side of the home and behind it being on a significant slope. The position of the septic system also limits the garage placement. The selected location of the garage in one of the most level on the lot plus there already exists a gravel driveway/turnaround area there. The ZBA finds the alleged difficulty to be self-created but not a determining issue. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action pursuant to Part 617.5c- 12 Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes Graham reads the County 239 -1, -m and -n of the NYS General Municipal Law Review. The County has no recommendation or comments on this proposal. 5-20-21 INSERT CO. Review 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 Inclusion through Diversity May 20, 2021 David Sprout, Code Enforcement Officer Town Of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area Variance for proposed project located at 285 Etna Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel #42.-1-48.12, Dan McLean, Owner /Applicant. Dear Mr. Sprout , The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability has reviewed the proposal submitted by your municipality as required under the provisions of New York State General Municipal Law §239 -l, -m and -n. We have no recommendations or comments on this proposal. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Should you have any questions about this review please contact us. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability 5 Decision to Grant Variance: Motion made by: Curtis to Grant this Variance as requested with no conditions. Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes Graham: lastly, we need to approve the minutes from our last meeting of April 6, 2021 Curtis: moves to approve minutes from 4-6-21. Second: Graham All in favor - Yes Graham Motions to adjourn 6:30 PM Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes Minuties of June 1, 2021 approved on November 2, 2021